Wednesday’s specially called city council meeting to canvass the results of the May 30 runoff election and discuss a few other matters that council member Samantha Bellows placed on the agenda was the last meeting for Bellows and her colleague Tammy Swaton. Bellows chose not to run for re-election and Swaton’s re-election bid was unsuccessful. Both had the opportunity to say some final words at the close of the meeting.
"It’s been interesting serving with all of you and I say "interesting" in a good way," Bellows told her council colleagues. "We can’t always see eye to eye. That’s not why we’re here. We should not constantly vote as a massive bloc. We should challenge each other and support each other and argue and debate and all those other funs things that go along with it. I have thoroughly enjoyed debating and discussing and finding the best paths for Kyle.
"I thought about people I should thank and the list went on way too long and I know you all don’t want to sit through that. So this is more or less a blanket ‘thank you.’ There are people in the community who have supported me since day one and people that have come around to seeing me as a good representative and people who have come around to the idea that I was a horrible representative. But either way I want to thank you all for engaging me, for talking to me, for challenging me.
"This was the most humbling experience I’ve ever had in my life. Specifically when I was mayor pro tem and something would go wrong and I would suddenly be forced into this spotlight of ‘You have to make a decision with us.’ And I’m like ‘Excuse me?’ So it was the scariest thing to realize that we make decisions that affect 30,000 people on a regular basis. And I want you to know how much I appreciate it even if you disagreed with me even if you hated me, even if you loved me.
"I want you to know that I appreciate every single interaction I had with every single citizen and I hope you can continue to interact with the council members because we are begging for information. Get involved. Be pro-active and talk to your representatives. We want to know. And I want to thank you in advance for doing that.
"I also wanted to thank staff because I know you had to put up with so much from me. And every single question I ever had and every single meeting I had to have right now because I have a lunch break in five minutes and it can fit into my schedule and can you rearrange your entire lives for me. And I want you to know that I did recognize that and I do appreciate it."
Bellows specifically singled out City Secretary Amelia Sanchez.
"Amelia, I’m sorry and I do love you and you’re fabulous and you have put up with so much from me and I love you and you’re fabulous and stay that way.
"So again thank you, council," she concluded. "It was amazing and I really hope the newest council members give you as hard a time as I did."
In her farewell remarks, Swaton said she intended to stay involved in city affairs and she indicated he would be specifically interested in activities that encourage increased citizen participation in the municipal government process.
"Community means everything to me and that’s the reason I got into this," she said. "I came from a strong community before I moved to Kyle and that was one of the first things I said to another member of council when I first moved here in 2004 is how important community is to me. I think everyone needs to give back to the community and when I was out campaigning, talking to people, that was huge and it just showed me how much I want to be involved still and I plan on doing so.
"Our citizens are great," she said. "They are wonderful to talk to. They have great ideas. My hope is to get them more involved with things.
"As for staff, I am a staff member at the University of Texas so ‘Go staff!’ I’m all for that. So I appreciate all your help, everything you’ve done, very much so.
"As for the council, everyone has been great," she concluded. "It’s been wonderful working with you all. Not that I agreed with you all the time, but it’s been great. Thank you"
The Kyle Report
Showing posts with label Samantha Bellows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samantha Bellows. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2015
Bellows’ ‘last stand’: Charge for using cop cars
I have found two things that are generally true when it comes to municipal police officers. They jump at the opportunity to take off-duty jobs, especially if it involves security work, and they rarely live in the same municipality in which they are employed. And I have no problem with either of these situations.
I used to wonder about police residency requirements until I sat down and had a number of conversations with officers and now I completely understand why they chose to live where they do. And I have no reservations about them taking off-duty jobs. I do have a problem, however, if they use their marked vehicles on those jobs and their part-time employer is not reimbursing the city for the gasoline that’s used and the general wear-and-tear on the vehicle caused by taking that car off to, say, block an exit on I-35 or some such. No reimbursing is tantamount to stealing taxpayers money.
I didn’t know the city did not charge for the use of these vehicles until it was brought to my attention by a concerned citizen during a recent visit to a resident’s home. After I was told about this, I double-checked with city spokesperson Jerry Hendrix who sent me a copy of a Kyle Police Department General Order issued Feb. 1, 2013 concerning the department’s "take home vehicle program." The last item of that order says "The vehicle may be used to travel to and from an off duty assignment that is within the police department’s jurisdiction. Approval for an assignment outside the jurisdiction may be made on a case by case basis by the Chief of Police or his designee. If an officer is summoned on duty they must leave the secondary employment and travel straight to the police department in their take home vehicle."
That’s it. Nothing about reimbursing the taxpayers for the vehicle and Wednesday night, in her last meeting as a member of the Kyle City Council, Samantha Bellows felt the need to bring this to the attention of her fellow council members.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett told the council the department surveyed 13 other Central Texas jurisdictions and learned five did not charge and eight did. He told the council there are two distinct ways cars may be used by officers employed in off-duty security-type situations.
"One is the non-active use versus the active use of a police vehicle," the chief explained. "Sometimes people ask the police to bring a vehicle and merely park it at the front gate or park it near the front door of the business and the presence of the vehicle is a deterrent to criminal activity and the motor is not running and the lights are not in use. It really just drove from the police station to the location and then back to the station.
"Alternatively there is the active use of a police vehicle. And that means when the motor is running and/or when the lights are turned on and we are actually using the equipment throughout the security event.
"The non-active use locations might be a venue that’s going to host a concert or something and the activity is really on the inside. The police vehicle is there merely as a presence. The active use more closely relates to the Interstate 35 construction zones where our officers are helping to block Interstate 35. They bring out and lower the big cross beams across the interstate and we have to shut the interstate entirely down. We reroute traffic. And at other times on the service roads, on both access roads we may have to close a bridge at one end or the other while they’re doing their work. Generally those cars are active in use with the motor running and lights flashing and what-not."
He said only two of the eight entities he surveyed that charged for the use of police vehicles charged for "non-active" uses: Hayes County charged a flat fee of $15 "for the mere presence of a vehicle regardless of whether it’s there for one hour or 12 hours." Rollingwood charged $20.
"Several of the others charged an hourly rate if that vehicle is running and the lights are flashing and maybe you’re using fuel," Barnett told the council. "The prices range anywhere from $10 to $20 per hour and that’s charged to that customer and is paid directly tp the governmental entity. So it is paid directly to the city of Kyle and not the police officer."
That is, of course, if Kyle charged for this service which Barnett admitted the city currently doesn’t. He did say however he is including some mention of this in a fee schedule he is proposing as part of the department’s budget request to the city manager.
Mayor Todd Webster thanked council member Bellows for bringing the matter to the attention of the council, but said there wasn’t much that could be done about it until it came time to debate the city manager’s proposed budget.
""This is more that this is my last stand," Bellows responded. "I figured I should state it now instead of when budget comes around. So I want to put it on the radar now and say ‘Hey, we are missing out on this. We’re losing money because of it.’"
I used to wonder about police residency requirements until I sat down and had a number of conversations with officers and now I completely understand why they chose to live where they do. And I have no reservations about them taking off-duty jobs. I do have a problem, however, if they use their marked vehicles on those jobs and their part-time employer is not reimbursing the city for the gasoline that’s used and the general wear-and-tear on the vehicle caused by taking that car off to, say, block an exit on I-35 or some such. No reimbursing is tantamount to stealing taxpayers money.
I didn’t know the city did not charge for the use of these vehicles until it was brought to my attention by a concerned citizen during a recent visit to a resident’s home. After I was told about this, I double-checked with city spokesperson Jerry Hendrix who sent me a copy of a Kyle Police Department General Order issued Feb. 1, 2013 concerning the department’s "take home vehicle program." The last item of that order says "The vehicle may be used to travel to and from an off duty assignment that is within the police department’s jurisdiction. Approval for an assignment outside the jurisdiction may be made on a case by case basis by the Chief of Police or his designee. If an officer is summoned on duty they must leave the secondary employment and travel straight to the police department in their take home vehicle."
That’s it. Nothing about reimbursing the taxpayers for the vehicle and Wednesday night, in her last meeting as a member of the Kyle City Council, Samantha Bellows felt the need to bring this to the attention of her fellow council members.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett told the council the department surveyed 13 other Central Texas jurisdictions and learned five did not charge and eight did. He told the council there are two distinct ways cars may be used by officers employed in off-duty security-type situations.
"One is the non-active use versus the active use of a police vehicle," the chief explained. "Sometimes people ask the police to bring a vehicle and merely park it at the front gate or park it near the front door of the business and the presence of the vehicle is a deterrent to criminal activity and the motor is not running and the lights are not in use. It really just drove from the police station to the location and then back to the station.
"Alternatively there is the active use of a police vehicle. And that means when the motor is running and/or when the lights are turned on and we are actually using the equipment throughout the security event.
"The non-active use locations might be a venue that’s going to host a concert or something and the activity is really on the inside. The police vehicle is there merely as a presence. The active use more closely relates to the Interstate 35 construction zones where our officers are helping to block Interstate 35. They bring out and lower the big cross beams across the interstate and we have to shut the interstate entirely down. We reroute traffic. And at other times on the service roads, on both access roads we may have to close a bridge at one end or the other while they’re doing their work. Generally those cars are active in use with the motor running and lights flashing and what-not."
He said only two of the eight entities he surveyed that charged for the use of police vehicles charged for "non-active" uses: Hayes County charged a flat fee of $15 "for the mere presence of a vehicle regardless of whether it’s there for one hour or 12 hours." Rollingwood charged $20.
"Several of the others charged an hourly rate if that vehicle is running and the lights are flashing and maybe you’re using fuel," Barnett told the council. "The prices range anywhere from $10 to $20 per hour and that’s charged to that customer and is paid directly tp the governmental entity. So it is paid directly to the city of Kyle and not the police officer."
That is, of course, if Kyle charged for this service which Barnett admitted the city currently doesn’t. He did say however he is including some mention of this in a fee schedule he is proposing as part of the department’s budget request to the city manager.
Mayor Todd Webster thanked council member Bellows for bringing the matter to the attention of the council, but said there wasn’t much that could be done about it until it came time to debate the city manager’s proposed budget.
""This is more that this is my last stand," Bellows responded. "I figured I should state it now instead of when budget comes around. So I want to put it on the radar now and say ‘Hey, we are missing out on this. We’re losing money because of it.’"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)