Loading...
02 City Council (08/12/02)MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PARIS August 12, 2002 The City Council of the City of Paris met in regular session, Monday, August 12, 2002, at 6:00 P. M., Paris Junior College, 2400 Clarksville Street, Room 1016, Paris, Texas. Mayor Michael J. Pfiester called the meeting to order with the following Council Members present: John Bell, Richard Manning, Joe E. McCarthy, Willie J. Weekly, Sr., Francine Neeley and Benny Plata. Also present were City Manager Michael E. Malone, City Attorney Larry W. Schenk, and City Clerk Mattie Cunningham. Invocation was given by Charles Olson of the Christian Fellowship Church. Mayor Pfiester announced that the City Council had been furnished copies of minutes from previous meeting and asked if there were any correction or additions, there being none, the minutes were approved as presented. Mayor Pfiester advised that minutes from the Paris Economic Development Corporation for June 19, 2002, and July 31, 2002, had been furnished with no action being required. Gary Vest, Director of Economic Development/Chamber of Commerce CEO, came forward giving the quarterly report. Mr. Vest stated that PEDC has four primary goals: retention/expansion of existing industries; recruitment of new employers; start-up/small business development; and infrastructure/training. Mr. Vest advised that in the preparation of their program, they have added several actions to these goals. For their first goal they have added participation in the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Council (NETMOB) to improve transportation in the Paris area. Under goal number two, they have added a web site for PEDC, and to explore regional development cooperatives. They have expanded goal three to include promoting the city's revolving fund. A fourth goal has been added to develop a site plan for the Northwest Industrial District and begin infrastructure improvements. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 2 Mr. Vest called the City Council's attention to the budget for 2002-2003 and advised that normally what they do in the budget is carry over funds that have not been expended in the current year. There are available funds in the amount of $2,094,039.00. He further explained that 50% of the revenue is for existing projects and 50% is for new industry projects but adjustments can be made throughout the year. Mr. Vest advised the City Council that Dick Severson has been sworn in and assumed his office on the PEDC Board. Jay Guest was elected President, Don Wall was elected Vice President, and Curtis Fendley was elected Secretary- Treasurer of PEDC. Mr. Vest said they have been running ads in various publications and passed around one from the Trade & Commerce Magazine, which was a Texas supplement that was done by the Texas Department of Economic Development. Mr. Vest said there was a new ad that they started running and it is called Business Development Outlook and pointed out the ad. Mr. Vest advised that their response to their ads have been slow during the summer months, and hoped that it will pick up in the fall. They will also be running an ad in the Black Real Estate Guide on a cooperative program with Oncor. Mr. Vest and Eric will be participating in a Dallas trade show with Oncor on August 26, 2002. They will be entertaining commercial realtors and talking about our community. Mr. Vest advised that he and Tommy Haynes had developed a brochure on the airport and it was ready to go to print. A copy was given to council members. Mr. Vest reported that PEDC had received a Skilled Development Fund grant from the Texas Workforce Commission for $800,000.00 for training at Kimberly-Clark and Campbell Soup. Mr. Vest stated that the grant will be a great asset for the community. He said that the people at Paris Junior College worked very hard to tap into this fund. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 3 Mr. Vest said they have completed their labor survey, which was done by telephone poll, to prove that they do have a workforce. This is a good statistical report that they use in recruiting industry. He also said they have a wage and benefit survey that is underway, and it should be completed in the next two weeks. City Manager Malone announced that the Council had been furnished minutes from the Paris Public Library Advisory Board, Main Street Advisory Board, Airport Advisory Board, the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Paris, and the Band Commission, with no action being required. Mayor Pfiester called for the presentations by City Staff and Consultants regarding City of Paris/Lamar County EMS-related issues, followed by discussion and possible action. City Attorney Schenk informed the City Council that what they were going to attempt to go through these five items: Background, financial information, and fiscal year 2001-2002 EMS financial and operations status report. B. Fiscal year 2002-2003 financial projections, EMS system. Summary and status report, past, present, and future contracts with County representative regarding EMS contract, open records requests, and EMS service options. Review and interpretation of current EMS contract between the City and Lamar County. Direction to staff regarding a presentation before the Lamar County Commissioners Court concerning the status of the ambulance service and City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 4 other future contracts with the County. City Attorney Schenk introduced special council, Gary Shaver. He advised that Mr. Shaver's resume as well as his partners' resumes had been given to council. Mr. Shaver, who has a long history in municipal law, would discuss issues related to Item D. A copy of Mr. Shaver's opinion had been included in council packets. City Attorney Schenk said that in a meeting that was had with Mr. Bob Bass, the County's attorney, and Kevin Parsons, Lamar County Auditor, they have discussed these materials that will be presented to the City Council, so the County is aware of that. Kent Klinkerman, Emergency Medical Service Administrator, came forward presenting the fiscal status of the EMS. Mr. Klinkerman said he was going to start with the 2000-2001 EMS contract settle-up numbers. Mr. Klinkerman explained that the contract with Lamar County states that the shortfall is split with the City of Paris paying 60% and Lamar County paying 40% of the shortfall. He said each year they estimate the shortfall by estimating the revenue and expenses and after audit they finalize the numbers to see where they stand. Historically they have tried to overestimate expenses and underestimate revenues in order to save the city from having to go back to the county for additional money. He said that has worked well for the last 12 or so years ago. Mr. Klinkerman said the settle up for 2000-2001 is in the council packet, and that after the audit, the county's share decreased from $350,000.00 to $334,000.00, so the City of Paris owed Lamar County $15,406.00, which has been refunded. Mr. Klinkerman said this was the year where a new crew was added which increased their capacity by 50%. He said it was vital that the city added this crew. Mr. Klinkerman stated that there has only been one year since 1990 that the city has not refunded the County money. That particular year, they owed the City about $1,300.00. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 5 City Attorney Schenk stated that in their meeting with Mr. Bass and Mr. Parson, who is the County Auditor, Mr. Parson indicated that he would rather be in the position of getting back a refund instead of having to find additional money. City Attorney Schenk said that the city is in agreement with that. City Attorney Schenk pointed out that the city's share of the shortfall to be $502,476.00. Mr. Klinkerman said that was true and the projected shortfall for the City for that year was $525,000.00, which decreased to $502,476.00. Mayor Pfiester wanted to know if the shortfall comes from inside the city limits or outside the city limits. Mr. Klinkerman responded that his office does not have records based on where the patient is picked up. They pick up patients who request ambulance service. It does not matter where the patients are. They could be in another state. It is additional keystrokes to track location and it is not relevant to the financial part of EMS. Mr. Klinkerman explained that historically the charges that were charged for ambulance service were very low, and it was never intended for the user fees to cover the cost of ambulance service. It was just understood that there would be a loss. No one runs an ambulance service for a profit. The City of Paris has never tried to generate enough revenue to be able to cover the entire expense. Mr. Klinkerman said the cost of the EMS that he supervises is the cost of the rescue components, which is also in a different budget. There is the cost of administrative service also. The administrative portion comes from accounts payable, human resources, legal, and city clerk. These departments help support the EMS Department instead of the EMS having to employ all of those people. City Attorney Schenk said he was looking at the issue of indigent care and reimbursement of Medicare as one of those numbers cause a shortfall. Mr. Klinkerman advised that on the revenue side, the city is obligated, if the city is licensed in the State of Texas, Medicare requires that you participate, which means you accept what the allow. For example, you charge $400.00 and Medicare only allows $200.00, then they will only pay 80% of the $200.00. He said the difference in what they allow and what is billed is legally uncollectible. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 6 The city has to write that off. Councilwoman Neeley wanted to know if the city is caught in the same catch twenty-two as the hospital. Mr. Klinkerman said yes, the very same thing. He said that any insurance program that has to do with federal or state dollars, you are locked in, they tell you what they will pay. Mr. Klinkerman explained further that the citizens are paying for indigent healthcare that is needed. He said that as of today the city has billed about 2.4 million dollars, but when the public insurance providers are telling you will have to write off a certain dollar amount, which is thousands of dollars as there is a disproportionate number of over-65 year old people than the rest of the state of Texas, along with the indigent people. He said this was considered a long time ago with an understanding that the City of Paris and Lamar County has a lot of older poorer people than other areas in the country. That is the reason why the city has never had a large focus on user fees because how tough does the City make it for these older people. Mr. Klinkerman advised that the EMS department fights with insurance companies everyday. He said, ~If someone calls an ambulance for a little old lady who has passed out, and, when the ambulance gets there and she is now conscious, the insurance companies do not like to pay for that type of call." Mr. Klinkerman explained that normally the billing clerks have to invest eight to ten hours gathering paper work such as medical records, doctor' s statements of medical necessity and things of that nature just to get that type of claim collected. Councilwoman Neeley wanted to know if that comes under the administrative cost that he was talking about earlier. Mr Klinkerman advised that the administrative fees he was talking about earlier were for someone to do the EMS payroll, someone to pay the bills for EMS, someone to manage th personnel records, someone to do the contracts, someone to keep the EMS records. The cost factors are all added together, subtract the user fees from that and then the split between the city and county occurs. Mr. Klinkerman stated that City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 7 neither the city nor the county gets the entire cost on their own. All of the expenses are placed in one category, subtract the projected revenue and what is left over is split 60% to the City and 40% to the County. Councilman McCarthy asked whether when the city adds to the crew that is considered a shortfall. Mr. Klinkerman said yes, and explained that they had enough call volume that they needed a little more capacity, which was about one-half of an ambulance, so the EMS Department had excess capacity. He explained that he tried to staff according to the volume of the calls, you want them to be busy a certain amount because you want them to cover a certain amount of what it cost the city. Mr. Klinkerman explained that someone who is having a heart attack does not want to wait ten minutes for an ambulance to complete another run. They want an ambulance quickly. If you focus only on efficiency, EMS would not have added the extra crew and we would have had people waiting for ambulances and people would be dying. The City Council stepped up and authorized purchasing the ambulance in order to provide good quality ambulance care to all citizens. Over time, Mr. Klinkerman said they expect a growth of three, four or five percent if that trend continues, at some point in time the ambulance will be helping pay for a majority of itself. He said the calls have to gradually come in. They ran 7,061 calls last year, and the projected calls are estimated to be 7,500 to 7,600, which is approximately 6% to 7%. He did not think it would continue to grow because it peaks and valleys a long the way, but at some point in time they will have that situation where they are busy to the point where you will see that the dollar amount will keep coming down. Mr. Klinkerman called the City Council's attention to the Debit/Credit Report for the EMS that had been included in the agenda packet. Mr. Klinkerman stated that this report reflects activity for the first ten months of the current fiscal year. This report shows a cash credit of what they have received and what was projected to that point in time and the difference between the two. At six months he had received $783,567.67 in revenues and his projection was to collect $662,500.00 and the projected revenues were over by $121,067.67. The City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 8 expenses for the same time were $892,383.00 and had only projected $804,882.00 and they were over by $87,501.00, but the net effect was a positive $33,566.67. Mr. Klinkerman pointed out that by the tenth month the EMS was $220,845.00 over in revenue. He said this is the trend they like and hope for and they would like for it to continue. Mr. Klinkerman stated that the EMS has had more injury hours this year and discussed this with the City Council. Councilwoman Neeley wanted to know if the Dispatchers for the City of Paris dispatch for the Police, Fire, County and EMS. Mr. Klinkerman explained the dispatch system and how calls were dispatched to the respective departments. Mr. Klinkerman added that the city also dispatches for the first responder. The City of Paris has twelve first responder groups throughout the county and they do a fantastic job. Mr. Klinkerman stated that the cost for training the first responders comes from his budget. Councilman Bell asked how the city comes up with the cost of the dispatch charge. Gene Anderson, Director of Finance, advised that originally the dispatch allocation was 25% of the dispatcher cost for ten dispatchers. That was increased when 911 came to the Paris Police Station, and the city added two dispatchers at that time. He went on to explain that the city currently has twelve dispatchers. Twenty-five percent of the pay for each of the first ten dispatchers, and one-hundred percent of the pay for the last two dispatchers is allocated towards the contract. So Lamar County has been paying 40% of the 37.5% for dispatcher cost. City Attorney Schenk advised that the shortfall cost to Lamar County for this year was $341,000.00, and under the new projection year the county's projection share of the shortfall is $294,324.00 and the city's projected shortfall is $441,486.00 and that is down from the settle up number of $502,000.00. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 9 Mr. Anderson pointed out that he has an estimated number of overtime hours, and that number is consistently estimated low from what the actual number is. He said that if they wanted to go back and really add everything in that is actual cost that overtime number is always larger, but it has been their premise is the city wants to work with the county and the city is not trying to see how much money we can get from the county, but we are trying to work with them, the city wants to work with the county as a partner to provide a good ambulance service. Mr. Anderson stated that he has never gone back and added all of the overtime back in, particularly for the dispatchers that could be added back in. He said this was done just to try and keep the contract consistent, because sometimes the overtime can vary a lot from year to year depending on whether or not someone quits, retires, and how long it takes to replace the dispatcher. Councilwoman Neeley asked Mr. Anderson if he was saying that if there is more overtime than what was projected the city pays the overtime? Mr. Anderson said that was correct. Councilman McCarthy wanted to know where that money was coming from for the overtime. Mr. Anderson advised that the money is budgeted in the Police Department's budget. Mr. Anderson said that the next page has to do with the rescue truck, personnel, and Mr. Klinkerman can go into details on exactly when the rescue truck is dispatched, which is pretty much every time there is a traffic accident, because the ambulance is packed with medical equipment they cannot carry the necessary rescue equipment. Mr. Anderson advised the city has the cost of one driver, one firefighter and their related benefits. Mr. Anderson said this is another area where the city gives the county a break. Mr. Anderson said the city has one driver and one firefighter which it takes to man a truck and if you wanted to man that truck 24 hours a day, which it is, that takes six people because of the three different shifts. Mr. Anderson advised that if the city wanted to be real strict about what the contract says we can do, the city could add four more people right here to the contract. Mr. Klinkerman explained what types of rescue could be accomplished with the rescue truck. Mr. Anderson said that the rescue truck itself and how the city allocates the cost to the contract was an issue that the county brought up at the meeting. He City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 10 said that he provided the county with a copy of the invoice where the city paid for the actual truck, which was $229,449.00. The city has never charged the county with any supplies or maintenance that has to go on the rescue truck, all of that is absorbed in the Fire Department's budget. Councilwoman Neeley stated that the city bought the equipment that is on the rescue truck and that is at the city's expense. Mr. Anderson said yes the city purchased the truck out of Certificate of Obligation funds which the city paid just over 5% interest rate on. Because the truck has an expected life of over 20 years or longer, they just amortized the $229,449.00 at 5% for 20 years and that comes up to $18,180.00 a year, and he rolls that $18,180.00 into the total cost. He said they provided the county documentation on how they did that. Mr. Anderson stated that another thing that the county asked about persistently was the administrative overhead at 6.5% and whether or not that is a fair and reasonable number. He provided the county with two examples. One was the Women, Infant and Children program that is operated at the Health Department that is a State funded program and they allowed an administrative cost to be paid to the city because the city does the administrative work for this program. He keeps the books, pays the bills, and processes the payroll. If there is a legal issue, then City Attorney Schenk handles the legal matters, and the State allows under that 10% of the direct salary cost for the administrative overhead. Mr. Anderson said if you take 10% of the direct salary cost for administrative overhead factor and put it in the EMS contract, the city would draw more money using that standard than we do 6.5%. Mr. Anderson said the other example he gave the county was one of the first contracts that he had anything to do with when he came to work for the city. In 1985, the city was negotiating a wastewater treatment contract with Merico, and in that agreement with them, the city negotiated an administrative overhead as 6.5%. Mr. Anderson felt that both of the examples showed the reason for the 6.5% that the city adds on for this cost. That it was not just a number pulled out of the air, but it is a reasonable number. Mayor Pro Tem Manning asked Mr. Klinkerman to explain why we run the rescue truck every time they call. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 11 Mr. Klinkerman explained that the rescue truck goes on the premise that we had rather have the appropriate resources there as quickly as possible than to be sitting there waiting on them. He advised that in the 1980's the rescue truck did not go to the scene until EMS requested them. He said they found themselves delaying patient care, delaying extrication time for no apparent reason. If your goal is quality patient care, and that is the way the city has always run this service, then the city wants to do whatever needs to be done to take care of the patients in the best possible way. All that had to be done was to dispatch the fire engine when the ambulance rolls. They roll for the protection of the people. If extra manpower is needed the rescue truck is there with it' s specialized equipment and a trained crew who can get the people out. This is called the golden hour. The quicker you can get a patient to definitive care the better their chances are of survival. Mr. Klinkerman stated that if you save five or ten minutes on the scene, that is five or ten minutes of their grace period that they have at the hospital. On a question by Councilman McCarthy, Mr. Klinkerman explained that if there is a wreck in Paris, an ambulance, the rescue truck, a fire engine, and the police will be dispatched. If the wreck is outside the city an ambulance and the rescue truck will be dispatched as well as the Volunteer Fire Department for that area because they are the First Responder Organization. Mr. Anderson advised that in the letter that the county wrote to the city concerning what they wanted to discuss at the meeting, they wanted a kind of reconciliation between the contract estimate, contract settle up, the city's budget, and the city' s copies of annual financial reports, CAFR. He said on the CAFR issue, the contract specifically says that the contract will be figured and calculated on the cash basis. Mr. Anderson said he pretty much dismissed that first issue with Mr. Bass because CAFR plays no part. CAFR is prepared on an accrual basis and does not play a part in the settle-up agreement. City Attorney Schenk informed the council members that they could look at the correspondence between himself and Mr. Bass concerning the meeting on August 6, 2002. Mr. Bass's list refers to the CAFR review. During the City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 12 meeting Mr. Parson agreed that it would be a difficult task to match the CAFR review and the cash settlement arrangement because the two time frames do not match. Mr. Anderson stated that after this meeting, Mr. Bass and Mr. Parson left with a better understanding. He said the problem with the county is that over time positions change, and judges change. They have discussed all these issues in the past with different judges. Councilman Plata asked if Mr. Bass was at this meeting. City Attorney Schenk advised that when Mr. Bass brought up the meeting, Mr. Schenk had suggested in writing that the attorney stay at home. Mr. Bass turned down the offer stating that he was to do this for the county. Mr. Schenk stated that he included Mr. Klinkerman as being accessible for the meeting, but that arrangement was turned down. City Attorney Schenk advised that he did include in the packet newspaper articles from the Paris News and the first one is back under the category of future meetings with the county. In the materials there is an article that ran back in February having to do with discussion of these issue. City Attorney Schenk said, at that time the city forwarded an agenda to the Commissioners Court of items that they felt was appropriate for discussion. He advised that part of the response from them was ~this agenda does meet the Open Meetings Act." The City Attorney requested a verbal opinion from the Attorney General's offices and he suggested there might be a need for detail regarding which streets, and he did agree that the agenda did in fact meet the Open Meetings Act. He said the other comment attributed to Judge Superville at that time, is the reason why we are putting these items on the agenda is because ~what the Mayor wants is money, the Mayor will not come out and say, I want the county to send more money." City Attorney Schenk told the City Council that is what the whole issue is about. The county wants to spend less money on ambulance service. He was amazed of that sort of a comment, because yes, indeed it might involve money, it might involve other areas where the city can share in cooperation, but if this is not a money issue, then he did not know why City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 13 is office has been churning out thousands of pieces of paper in response to open records requests which have to do with dispatches in the county and/or the money spent on those costs, so presumably there could be some calculation of how much it cost per run in the county. This is about money. If we ever thought it was not about money he wanted to dispel that rumor right now. City Attorney Schenk felt there is not any more information that the city can provide on the issue of the money. They are going to have to take us for our word, or not. City Attorney Schenk said there is another report in July 26, 2002, that this agenda is now too lengthy to discuss with the county. The ambulance issue is the only one that should be discussed at one time. City Attorney Schenk made the statement to the City Council %ounty officials are paid to do their jobs, you are not," but he could not see the length of this agenda in anyway should be a consideration. City Attorney Schenk pointed out that the number of items on the proposed agenda has been reduced by two because the donation of the surplus ambulance to the Red Cross and the contract for jail service are two issues that have been resolved. City Attorney Schenk stated that Council had been furnished copies of the open records request received from Mr. Bass. There were items in this second request that disturbed him. There were allegations that the city had attempted to hide changes in the contract from the county and that this was being done so that they would not have to justify an increase in costs. The City Attorney told City Council that in his request he expelled each of the rumors. The change in the contract that was complained about had been sent to the Judge' s office and had been identified as a change by the previous city attorney when it was sent to the Judge. Mr. Schenk said that to his knowledge, the Judge never objected to the change. City Attorney Schenk said that the other issue was a question having to do with not only that particular change, but supposedly that the change was made City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 14 because we knew that from the information that might have been reported at that time, we were going to have an increase in cost and that we were trying to somehow set it up where we would have to account for that. In fact, in the time flame of that change being made, Mr. Klinkerman confirmed that our cost was down. City Attorney Schenk said one thing that has not been said is what other options are there but to continue to provide quality ambulance service to the county. He said not knowing what might be in the minds of individual Commissioners and the Judge, the city can only look at that from the perspective of the information that we receive. City Attorney Schenk said that one piece of information that the city did receive in our open record request, was a copy of the proposal that the county received in the year 2001 from LifeNet. The City Attorney asked Mr. Klinkerman to look at that proposal and to give the City Council comments comparing that scope of services that would be received if the county contract was on that basis compared to the scope of services that is currently being received under the city's arrangement with the county. Mr. Klinkerman came forward telling the City Council that the proposal that was presented to Lamar County was a proposal for $385,000.00 per year for five years. He said in looking at that proposal it was kind of unclear based on the wording whether or not the City of Paris would be included in this proposal, or if it was for the area outside the City of Paris. Mr. Klinkerman said that it was disturbing in the fact that there is only one ambulance that would be dedicated to Lamar County. Mr. Klinkerman said this fixed fee for five years was higher than any actual amount that the city has ever billed the county. Mr. Klinkerman pointed out that the actual cost for any year has never been that high. Mr. Klinkerman informed the City Council that the city staffs three MICU ambulances 24 hours a day. They also staff a non-emergency truck 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and there is one additional crew on call 24 hours a day, and seven MICU ambulances can be staffed as needed. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 15 LifeNet moves their resources around depending on their calls. Mr. Klinkerman pointed out that the City of Paris EMS has two paramedics in each ambulance, which improves patient care. Two paramedics can perform advanced procedures simultaneously on a critically ill or injured patient. LifeNet provides only one paramedic and one EMT basic per ambulance. He reminded the Council that there is also the rescue truck that responds to accidents anywhere in the county. Mr. Klinkerman said the city's paramedics have and average of twelve years of experience. Councilwoman Neeley said if the city is busy trying to pad these costs and pass them on to the county, since she pays county taxes along with city taxes you would be penalizing her as a city taxpayer as well as penalize someone in the county. Mr. Gary H. Shaver, 1800 N. W. Loop 281, Suite 310, Longview, Texas, with the firm of Boon, Shaver, Echols & Coleman, came forward stating that he was present this evening because Mr. Schenk asked him to review the contract that the City Council has been discussing. As per specifics, Mr. Schenk had requested Mr. Shaver to look at whether the contract was ambiguous, whether it clearly apportions the expenses between the City of Paris and Lamar County, and whether the contractual relationship established in the contracts comply with State law. Mr. Shaver stated that the contract is very clear in terms of what the terms expected of each party are. The fact that there is a disagreement is not an indication that there is any ambiguity and he promised that people disagree about extremely clear contracts all the time. The point he would like to make to the Council members is that the terms of this contract are clearly defined and he did not find any ambiguity regarding the contract. Mr. Shaver said there is a specific cost sharing arrangement with the parties having specifically defined obligations in terms of payments or meeting shortfalls. He did not see any problem with either the intentions of the parties for county-wide service or the parties obligation to pay for the excess of City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 16 expenses over collections. Mr. Shaver said this is called an interlocal cooperation agreement. As such, it has specific statutory obligations to follow. The Interlocal Cooperation Act says that parties (local governments) can cooperate on governmental functions. The Act is clear that provision of the emergency medical services is appropriate subject to the interlocal agreement. Mr. Shaver said that there is another statute that allows counties to provide county-wide emergency medical service, but there is no statute that cities have an obligation to provide county-wide service. Mr. Shaver said another thing about the Interlocal Cooperative Act that is important is that the party providing the service must be compensated in an amount that fairly compensates them for the services or functions performed under the contract. If the contract does not provide for you to collect a fair compensation, then you are violating the Texas Constitution because it is illegal for the City of Paris to provide services outside it's boundaries without charging fair compensation. That would violate the Texas Constitution, which prohibits donating or giving your services away to either the county or individuals citizens outside your corporate limits. Mr. Shaver said a question that has arisen on many occasions is the fair compensation requirement. Mr. Shaver said the Attorney General has ruled that fair compensation means a suitably equivalent compensation. There is not requirement that it be dollar for dollar for the value of service provided. The idea in the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and you can see this in a lot of the Attorney General's opinions that has been written on this subject, is the promotion of cooperation between governmental entities on a wide range of services. Mr. Shaver said he finds it interesting that the city has proposed the idea of a city-county meeting where a large variety of services are to be discussed in order for the parties can cooperate to reduce charges to all the citizens. He felt that is part of what the Interlocal Cooperation Act is trying to promote so that instead of dollars for services, you can have services for services. If you are receiving dollars, those dollars have to be suitably equivalent to the value of the services provided. Mr. Shaver said the question has come up as to what is the value of the services provided and that has been discussed this evening. He said there is no question that the direct services of City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 17 the EMS is appropriate to be charged. The question is, there are things like administrative support, dispatch, collections, and other efforts being done to support the contract and are those are appropriate? Mr. Shaver said you cannot provide the EMS unless you have those things, and if you do not charge for those things, then, you are not charging a suitably equivalent charge that is necessary to support the service. Mr. Shaver stated that in his view, that when you are pricing the EMS, it has to include both direct and indirect charges. Mr. Shaver said the level of service that is provided is something under the contract that is left to the City of Paris. It specifically requires adequate emergency medical services vehicles and related services adequate as to be determined by the provider under the contract, which is the City of Paris. It is more than basic emergency medical service. It provides references in paragraph six of the contract - all vehicles used for emergency service. He said that this is clearly not just an ambulance contract, it is not a transportation contract, it is a emergency response contract by the implication of terms. Mr. Shaver stated that the contract, in his opinion, is clear that the City of Paris has the discretion on the decisions on the type of emergency medical service that it is going to provide; that there is a positive discretion that has been made known to the county in terms of the contract and the information that has been provided; and they have agreed to those terms over the course of the life of the contract. The county cannot pick and choose, as the purchaser of those services, and say I am going to buy this service, or I am not going to buy that service if it is part of the services provided to residents of Lamar County, then there is a legal obligation. Mr. Shaver thought they would have to pay for those or the city can not provide those services. He said it is not a system where the city could decide they are going to provide the services to all the residents and not charge for those services. Mr. Shaver said, as he mentioned before, there is a provision that says the county can provide emergency medical service and not charge the local entities inside the county. The county can be pay for all and not charge any of the cities. He advised that the City of Paris cannot do that legally. Mr. Shaver said City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 18 the 60/40% is a rough approximation of the population based upon his examination of the Attorney General's opinion that are available in some case law, the percentage basis on population is probably a fair way to allocate the cost. Mayor Pfiester said he had a meeting with Judge Superville about understanding his position and then the recital that the City Attorney Schenk patched to the contract and it says this contract is for emergency medical service to be provided outside the incorporated city limits of Paris. Mayor Pfiester asked Mr. Shaver to read that paragraph. Mr. Shaver said this is the second paragraph of the preamble of the contract and he read the paragraph as follows: ~' WHEREAS, the City of Paris, Paris, Texas, and the County of Lamar, State of Texas, desire to enter into a contract pursuant to said Chapter 791 whereby the City of Paris will provide emergency medical services to that portion of Lamar County located outside of the city limits of Paris in return for a contribution by the County of Lamar to defray the cost of providing such emergency medical services." Mayor Pfiester stated that the Judge circled that portion of the contract and he also referred to Section 14 of the contract. The Mayor said the Judge felt that what this means is the City of Paris is responsible for paying, according to this contract, 100% of the cost of ambulance service inside the city limits of Paris and 60% of the cost outside the city limits of Paris and the county is only responsible for the 40%. City Attorney Schenk interjected that to do that, you would completely ignore the entire rest of the contract, which would mean that the city would underwrite the shortfall for everyone in that part of the county that is in the city, plus the city would underwrite a larger portion of the shortfall for those not located in the city than the county does. Mr. Shaver stated that the paragraph in the preamble has nothing to do with the interpretation of the contract. Mr. Shaver pointed out, from the letter that he had written to Mr. Schenk, a case in 1927 that states that you do not look at the preamble to interpret a contract. You look at the contract to determine what the City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 19 parties agree on. He said that the only time you look at things like the preamble or what the parties have done in the past is if you cannot understand what the contract says, and you do not have that situation here. The contract is so clear the parties have done the same thing since 1979. He did not see that there has been any misunderstanding as to what the contract terms are. Mayor Pfiester called for direction to staff regarding a presentation before the Lamar County Commissioners Court concerning the status of the ambulance service and other future contracts with the County. City Attorney Schenk advised the City Council that there are two issues that he needs their guidance on. The first issue concerns the status of the meeting to further discuss the status of the ambulance contract. The City Attorney referred back to Mr. Shaver's comments regarding the consideration of discussion of other areas of mutual cooperation similar to what this agenda is. City Attorney Schenk said he has told Mr. Bass repeatedly that those items needed to be on the agenda because that was his understanding of this Council's position. He advised Mr. Bass that the issue needs to be discussed; if not between the two lawyers, it needs to be discussed between the governing bodies. The City Attorney said he also told Mr. Bass that it was his understanding that type of meeting would occur only in the context of having these other issues of mutual interest on the agenda at the same time. In his view, there is no reason why that cannot be done either from a time perspective or a legal perspective, and he wanted to make sure that is still the consensus of the City Council. Mayor Pfiester called for a show of hands of the Council Members who were in agreement with the City Attorney's position that City Council wanted a meeting with the county only if all issues would be discussed at the meeting. All of the council members approved except Councilman Plata. City Attorney Schenk said he had placed in the agenda packet a letter from Judge Superville which designated the law firm of Allison & Bass Associates, L.L.P., as the representative to receive information called for by the section of the contract that deal with EMS financial information. Mr. Schenk advised that City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 20 in his reading of the contract the city has satisfied the reporting requirements of the contract for this year as a result of the meeting with Mr. Bass and the county auditor. Mr. Schenk thought Mr. Bass would agree. The contract does not say that Kent Klinkerman will go over and present himself before the Commissioner's Court. That has just been a traditional way that this information has been presented to the Court in the past. City Attorney Schenk said in his view, the city has satisfied the reporting requirements for the next ensuing year by virtue of the meeting with Mr. Bass who is the designated representative of Lamar County. His suggestion is that since the city has met the obligation of the contract, he would like to have the authority to send a letter to the county saying that they would appear, but only if invited. A motion was made by Councilwoman Neeley to send a letter to the Lamar County saying that a person from the City of Paris will appear before the Commissioner's Court at their request to make a presentation regarding the EMS as has been the practice in the past, but they will come with legal representation. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCarthy and carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Another thing that City Attorney Schenk discussed with the City Council was an Emergency Medical Services District, which is available under the law. It has separate taxing authority up to ten cents on $100.00 evaluation. The advantage to creating a district is that it gets the cost out of the county budget and, if the city participates in the district, it gets the cost out of the city budget. Mayor Pfiester announced that the City Council will take a short break. Mayor Pfiester reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Resolution No. 2002-126, approving the 2002-2003 Appraisal Roll, as certified by the Finance Director of the City of Paris, in his role as Tax Assessor/Collector for the City of Paris, and as previously certified to the City of Paris by the Chief Appraiser of the Lamar County Appraisal District, was presented. A motion was made by Councilwoman Neeley, seconded by City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 21 Councilman Weekly, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-127, approving the form of the agreement for Arbitrage Rebate Compliance Services with First Southwest Asset Management, Inc., for professional services to determine to what extent, if any, the City of Paris will be required to rebate investment earnings of the proceeds of certain bonds, notes, certificates, or other tax-exempt obligations to the United States of America pursuant to the provisions of Section 148(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, was presented. A motion was made by Councilman Bell, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-128, approving the form of the contract between the City of Paris and Dubuis Hospital of Paris for non-emergency transport of patients to and from its facilities, was presented. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, seconded by Councilman Weekly, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-129, resolving that the bid of Reeves Construction Services, Inc., for the construction of the City of Paris Animal Shelter, in the amount of $441,500.00, be, and the same is hereby, accepted and let conditioned upon said contractor meeting all of the terms and specifications included in the bid document, was presented. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, seconded by Councilman McCarthy, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-130, accepting the proposal of Hayter Engineering for the engineering services for the Stillhouse Road Improvement Project for the right- of-way acquisition, design and construction phase of said project, was presented. After a considerable amount of discussion, a motion was made by Councilwoman Neeley for approval of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bell and carried 6 ayes, 1 nay, Councilman Plata voting no. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 22 Resolution No. 2002-131, approving the form of the Contract Change Notice No. 01 to the Contract for Public Health Services, TDH Document No. 7560022067-2003, was presented. A motion was made by Councilman Weekly, seconded by Councilman McCarthy, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-132, approving the advertisement for bids for furnishing labor, materials, and equipment and for performing all work required for grounds maintenance on specified City of Paris parks and facilities, was presented. A motion was made by Councilman Bell, seconded by Councilwoman Neeley, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-133, referring to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Paris for its recommendation on the matter of abandoning a 50 foot wide street known as County Road 42602, and also known as Simmons Drive, from the west boundary line of Mockingbird Lane going west 150 feet to the end of said Simmons Drive, between Pine Mill Road and Noles Drive was presented. A motion was made by Councilman McCarthy, seconded by Councilman Weekly, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-134, referring the matter of abandoning a portion of the street known as 3rd Street NE from Paris Boulevard to Sycamore Street to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Paris for its recommendation, was presented. A motion was made by Councilman Plata, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-135, adopting a revised voting district map for the City of Paris, was presented. A motion was made by Councilman McCarthy, seconded by Councilman Weekly, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 23 Resolution No. 2002-136, authorizing the termination of the custodial contract for the maintenance and custodial services for the City Hall, Water Billing Office, City Hall West Annex, City Hall North Annex, the Paris Public Library, and the Municipal Airport Terminal and authorizing advertizing the bids for said service, was presented. A motion was made by Councilman McCarthy, seconded by Councilman Plata, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Resolution No. 2002-137, approving and authorizing the execution of a compromise, settlement, and release agreement in the cause of action styled City of Denton, Texas, et al Vs. Texas Utilities Company, et al., was presented. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, seconded by Councilman McCarthy, for approval of the resolution. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. FRANCHISE ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, PARIS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE EXISTING ELECTRIC FRANCHISE BETWEEN THE CITY AND ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, TO PROVIDE FOR A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION; PROVIDING FOR ACCEPTANCE BY ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY WAS PRESENTED ON FIRST READING. A motion was made by Councilman McCarthy, seconded by Councilwoman Neeley, for approval of the ordinance on first reading. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. FRANCHISE ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, PARIS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE EXISTING GAS FRANCHISE BETWEEN THE CITY AND TXU GAS COMPANY, TO PROVIDE FOR A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEASE OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHTS-OF-WAY; PROVIDING FOR ACCEPTANCE BY TXU GAS COMPANY, READING. City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 24 WAS PRESENTED ON FIRST A motion was made by Councilman Weekly, seconded by Councilman McCarthy, for approval of the ordinance on first reading. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, PARIS, TEXAS, GRANTING TO STEVE B. RAINEY AND WENDY L. RAINEY DBA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING FRANCHISE TO USE THE PUBLIC STREETS, ALLEYS, AND HIGHWAYS OF THE CITY OF PARIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING PAS SENGERS AND HIRE IN MOTOR VEHICLES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, BEGINNING JULY 13, 2002, THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF THE EXISTING FRANCHISE, AND ENDING JULY 12, 2003, UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER PRESCRIBED; PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF SAID BUSINESS; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF A TAX FOR SUCH PRIVILEGE AND USE OF SUCH STREETS, ALLEYS, AND HIGHWAYS; PROVIDING FOR THE TERMINATION OF SUCH GRANT UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR TAXICAB STANDS FOR USE OF SAID GRANTEE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ON THE MOTOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT OF SAID GRANTEE; PROVIDING FOR THE SUPERVISION OF SAID BUSINESS AND INSPECTION OF ITS VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF PARIS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WAS PRESENTED ON THIRD READING. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, for adoption of the ordinance on third reading. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Neeley and carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-040 City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, PARIS, TEXAS, GRANTING TO DENNIS NELMS, DBA CITY CAB COMPANY, A FRANCHISE TO USE THE PUBLIC STREETS, ALLEYS, AND HIGHWAYS OF THE CITY OF PARIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING PAS SENGERS AND HIRE IN MOTOR VEHICLES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, BEGINNING AUGUST 10, 2002, THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF THE EXISTING FRANCHISE, AND ENDING AUGUST 9, 2003, UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER PRESCRIBED; PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF SAID BUSINESS; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF A TAX FOR SUCH PRIVILEGE AND USE OF SUCH STREETS, ALLEYS, AND HIGHWAYS; PROVIDING FOR THE TERMINATION OF SUCH GRANT UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR TAXICAB STANDS FOR USE OF SAID GRANTEE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ON THE MOTOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT OF SAID GRANTEE; PROVIDING FOR THE SUPERVISION OF SAID BUSINESS AND INSPECTION OF ITS VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF PARIS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WAS PRESENTED ON THIRD READING. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, for adoption of the ordinance on third reading. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Neeley and carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mayor Pfiester announced that the next item on the agenda was appointing an auditor to conduct the Independent Annual Audit as required by Section 35 of the Charter of the City of Paris for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002. Gene Anderson, Director of Finance, came forward telling the City Council that by Charter we do this service different from any other service. Mr. Anderson said that historically, always when possible, the city has chosen a local vender City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 26 to do this service and McClanahan and Holmes, which is the largest CPA Firm in the City of Paris, submitted the only proposal this year. After discussion, a motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Manning, seconded by Councilwoman Neeley, to appoint McClanahan and Holmes to conduct the annual audit for the City of Paris. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. City Attorney Schenk presented the following petition for rezoning: Monte Moore, Lot 8, City Block 318, from an Agricultural District to a Commercial District. Mayor Pfiester referred the petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their study and recommendation at their meeting scheduled for September 2, 2002. City Manager Malone mentioned the tribute to Charles Mack Cox. There was a good turnout at Cox Field Airport. Mayor Pfiester, Councilman McCarthy, and Councilwoman Neeley were able to attend the dedication at the airport. City Manager Malone congratulated Col. Jim Ashmore for having the idea of having a portrait of Charles Mack Cox installed at Cox Field Airport. He invited everyone out to view the painting, which was done by Jamie Carter. There being no further business, a motion was made by Councilman McCarthy, seconded by Councilman Weekly, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 7 ayes, 0 nays. MICHAEL J. PFIESTER, MAYOR ATTEST: City Council Meeting Aug. 12. 2002 Page 27 MATTIE CUNNINGHAM, CITY CLERK City Clerk