The council also voted to table an ordinance involving alarm registration/false alarms and, in somewhat of a surprising move, rejected the idea of joining the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. To absolutely no one’s surprise, the city voted to save $1.4 million in debt service by issuing refunding bonds on some of its outstanding obligations. What was surprising was that (1) the amount saved turned out to be $300,000 more than originally anticipated and (2) the council received the tantalizing piece of news that the city’s bond rating may improve.
The council voted 5-0 (Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley and council member Daphne Tenorio missed last night’s meeting) to deny a proposed ordinance establishing a process for "placement of traffic regulatory signs" that would have allowed citizens to appeal for stop signs directly to the council. Within the last 15 months, the council has approved the placement of unwarranted stop signs on three separate occasions.
The council directed the city’s staff to come up with a process for approving traffic control devices that does not include the city’s legislative body. That process would presumably involve a staff decision on whether to authorize a traffic warrant study on any proposed traffic control device with the final decision on whether to install the device based on the results of that study as well as some discretion on the part of the staff. The council itself, however, would no longer be involved in those decisions.
The ordinance under consideration would have allowed citizens desiring to have a stop sign installed in a place where preliminary examinations indicated such a device would not be warranted to put down a deposit with the city to help fund a full-fledged traffic warrant analysis anyway. If the analysis showed the device to be unwarranted, that deposit would be forfeited. However, the ordinance allowed citizens to appeal that traffic study decision to the full council that could vote to install the device even though it was not warranted.
"There isn’t anything that has occurred since the last meeting (on this ordinance) that has persuaded me that our policy should be anything other than we do not do unwarranted stop signs," Mayor Todd Webster said immediately after Police Chief Jeff Barnett had outlined the changes made to the ordinance between the time it was originally discussed two weeks ago and last night’s formal first reading. Webster saluted council member Travis Mitchell’s efforts "to find a correct balance" with the ordinance, adding if the council approved the ordinance "I could live with it. But I don’t believe we should be doing unwarranted stop signs and I regret that I participated in some of those decisions in the past because all it did was encourage more people to come in and we ended up making decisions for political reasons" while ignoring public safety issues. "When you put up stop signs in places where they are not warranted there is the potential of a safety risk."
Mitchell said that he was working on additional language for the ordinance but, during the course of the discussion on the proposal, he realized "as good as the intentions are to create multiple paths to allow people to have a chance to have a traffic control device where they feel it should be, the conclusion I’ve come to what this ordinance is going to do to us is increase the pressure politically. When you ask someone to make a deposit and the results come back unwarranted there is an expectation that this process was put in place so that they could pay for a sign and then bring it back to city council and we would approve it. I know that’s how I would feel if I paid $800 because I wanted a study done. How could we vote ‘no’ (on a traffic control device) after passing an ordinance like this? While I did have language here to change the ordinance and I want the citizens to have a path, the path that they have is staff. I feel queasy every time somebody asks me for a stop sign. I feel like I’m not the one to make that decision. I’m not the one to bypass staff and make that decision because a few people support it or gave money. So, although I had two more paragraphs to add to this ordinance, it just dawned on me that we’re meddling in something than we shouldn’t. It should be staff’s decision. I think this (ordinance) is going to cause more problems than solutions."
Webster complimented Mitchell for this position. "Given the amount of work you’ve put into this, your change of opinion here says something," the mayor told the recently elected Mitchell.
After directing staff to come back with a written process explaining how it will base its decisions on where the install traffic control devices, the council approved council member Shane Arabie’s motion to deny the ordinance.
Although the council chambers were not flooded by concerned citizens wishing to express their opposition to the proposed alarm ordinance (one person speaking during public comments made passing reference to the ordinance, but he basically abused his speaking privilege by taking up nearly twice his allotted time railing against a roundabout that hasn’t even been officially proposed), council members acknowledged they were basically bowing to political pressure in tabling an ordinance that is routine in the overwhelming majority of Texas cities, namely the registration of alarms.
Webster said he had concerns about a third party being involved in the process.
"We do hope to bring you some information about opportunities to partner with third party alarm administrators," Barnett told the council. "We had one tentatively on the agenda that we pulled at the last minute so we could get some new numbers that were asked of staff and to coordinate that with the third party vendor. At $25 (per year) recommended registration for residents and a $50 (also paid annually) recommended fee for a business or commercial, when we discussed that with the alarm administrator they were looking at about a 49-51 percent split, with the 51 coming to the city. One council member asked us to look at some other pricing options — $10 and $20 and then $20 and $50, to be exact — and we sent that back to the company but they just weren’t able to put their numbers together to have it ready for this agenda."
"I recognize most other communities do this," Webster said, "but I’m not sure it would be wise to move forward and deal with this without getting better details about what the value proposition is going to be like. I’m going to suggest that we table this item to have an opportunity to get a little more detail about what the contract (with the third party vendor) might look like." Then, directly to Chief Barnett, the mayor said "I’m watching what’s going on and I’m afraid you’re getting into an area here the consequences of which may not be what you intend in terms of community reaction."
Although registrations would not be required until the beginning of next year, Mitchell argued that was not enough of "a buffer" to inform citizens about the registration requirement. He estimated only a quarter of all alarm holders would be registered by that time. He recommended that, instead of issuing a citation to those with unregistered alarms that summon a police response, that only a warning be handed out for the first offense.
After telling Mitchell he thought that was a good suggestion, Webster said "My skepticism is still about a third party arrangements for these types of things." The mayor said he has heard ten times as many citizens voice opposition to the proposed alarm ordinance than those opposing the idea of a roundabout on Kyle Parkway. "That should give you some sense of the community reaction to it. I’m not close minded to the idea if the data is there, if it’s going to solve our problems, if the proposal generates the revenue that will compensate us for all that extra work that is taking place and it truly would deter false alarms. I am just not convinced this ordinance will do that. So that’s what I’m looking for."
The mayor also said he was looking for "reassurance on the data privacy side of this." He said he had concerns about an outside firm "who has access and knowledge of everyone’s alarm."
Barnett did point out that 98.44 percent of all alarms Kyle police officers respond to are false alarms, which was tantamount to having one officer whose sole responsibility was dealing full-time with false alarms. I asked the chief about the possibility of separating the ordinances and possibly moving ahead with one that solely dealt with penalties for excessive false alarms. His reply:
"Our current and existing ordinance does ‘fine’ people for false alarms. The problem is the day-to-day management of that operation. We do not have the staff to keep up with the tabulation, letter sending, follow-up, and fine processing on a regular basis. We can easily get six months behind in sending out the collection letters, which leads to more false alarms. Plus we spend time waiting on alarm companies to call their customer and act as an intermediary while our officers are waiting at the scene. If we had that information from their alarm registration, we could contact them directly and save some time on scene."
After being tempted by the lure that the city might be in line for a grant to make the police fleet more fuel efficient, the council voted 3-2 to reject the invitation to joining the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. Mitchell joined council members David Wilson and Becky Selbera in opposition to the invitation, suggesting it was not likely Kyle would be awarded the grant anyway and that they could see no other "real tangible benefit" (Mitchell’s words) in joining the coalition.
During the discussion to approve the refunding of $9 million in outstanding bonds that, according to the agenda item, would save the city $1.1 million, Finance Director Perwez Moheet revealed "We have an exceptionally positive update to share with you this evening regarding the refunding bonds. This morning we were able to price the refunding bonds at various maturity points to a Citi Group global market such that the final interest cost savings to the City of Kyle will now be approximately $1.4 million. This is an increase of $300,000 from our original cost-saving estimate."
Moheet credited the extra savings to the city’s "excellent credit rating and its strong financial position."
"In summary," Moheet told the council in his typically subdued way, "the City of Kyle had a great day in the tax exempt bond market this morning."
Then the city’s financial advisor, Chris Allen with First Southwest, told the council "This (refunding) process requires us to meet with the rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s. They affirmed your rating of AA-. But they moved the outlook from ‘stable’ to ‘positive’. What that means is ‘positive’ generally signifies they’re about to push you to the next notch. And the higher the rating, the lower the borrowing cost. So that’s kudos to you as management and your financial team here."
Allen said the positive review from S&P resulted from "the city’s economic expansion and property tax base growth which has resulted in improved wealth indicators. They also cite strong budgetary performance with an operating surplus in the General Fund and a slight operating surplus at the total government fund level. They cite the city has good reserves and is liquid."
In other action last night, the council:
- Approved five persons — Terri Thompson, Paul Terry, Matt Janysek, Inocencio Vasquez and Edgar Rodriguez — for reappointment to the Board of Adjustments/Sign Control Board.
- Passed a comparatively innocuous ordinance regulating outdoor lighting standards that technically won’t apply to a third of the city’s area (recently annexed land) and to none of its residential districts.
- Approved a $4.5 million contract that, for all practical purposes, finally kick starts work on the Bunton Road bond project.
- Viewed pretty pictures of the city’s new website that is scheduled to go on-line next Tuesday.
- Canceled its meeting scheduled for October 4 due to conflicts with a Texas Municipal League conference in Austin as well as a National Night Out.
No comments:
Post a Comment