04-30-03
Schertz City Council – Workshop Session
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
The Schertz City Council convened in workshop session on Wednesday, April
30, 2003 at 7:00pm in the Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz
Parkway, Schertz, Texas. The following members were present: Mayor Hal
Baldwin, presiding, Councilmembers Carl Douglas, Reginna Agee, Tony
Wilenchik and Ken Greenwald. Absent was Councilmember Simonson. Staff
members present were City Manager Mark Marquez and Deputy City Secretary
Mary Ybarra.
At this time, Mayor Baldwin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
#1 Hearing of Residents:
Mark Marquez spoke as a resident of Schertz. He read a certificate from the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Public Drinking Water Section of
the Water Supply Division). The certificate is presented to Schertz Public Works
for outstanding performance. The public water system had no violations during
a five-year period, 1997-2001 relative to the “Total Coliform Rule.” Mr. Marquez
then presented the certificate to Assistant City Manager, Johnny Bierschwale
who was Public Works Director and was instrumental on achieving recognition
during the time frame.
A second award was also read, “Certificate of Appreciation” awarded to the City
of Schertz for its Commitment and Support of Abused and Neglected Children
during the period 2002. What makes the award special is that the individuals
which to remain anonymous. These individuals many of them city staff have
been involved for several years in ways that aren’t necessarily seen, sort of
behind the scene efforts.
Mayor Baldwin suggested possibly those individuals involved would consider
nominating or submitting the lady responsible (Zenobia Coverson) to the Time
Warner Hometown Hero award. He believes recognition is warranted.
Robert Brockman, 4505 Grand Forrest had the following comments:
??
Commented that parking at Burke Roofing has a two-hour limit and its
not being enforced. Limit is being exceeded and no one is parking
within the strips, such as the businesses in the immediate area.
??
Commented the Live Oak Road directionally sign on Schertz Parkway
is down. The sign has been down for sometime and believes an
identifier sign is also needed.
??
Asked about traffic signal spacing, because he would really like to see
a light at Ashley Place. Who regulates traffic signals and their spacing?
He was advised spacing is ½ mile and regulated by the State (if State
Road). However, the City has no regulation, but cost is a factor.
??
Noted, Tony Wilson will be on vacation. Who will be working on city
name boards for placement in Lobby area? He was advised the project
is ongoing and very soon placement would take place.
??
Mentioned streets signs are needed badly on Savannah Drive, there are
none.
#2 Discussion regarding formation of committee for reviewing
applications for Teen Court Scholarship.
Mr. Marquez reminded Council that the above matter came about at the request
of Judge Padgett, and Council has agreed to form a committee to review
applications for scholarship recipients. Applications have been submitted thus, it
is time to form the committee.
At this time, Judge Padgett informed Council that four applications have been
received and copies would be provided to each committee member. It is her
understanding the committee is to be formed with no more than two council
members plus the Mayor.
In brief discussion, the following volunteered to sit as committee members:
Councilmembers Simonson, Greenwald plus the Mayor. It was pointed out; Mr.
Spain City Attorney would review applicant essays. Judge Padgett would like
the committee to decide on date and time to conduct interviews, because she
would like to make presentation of Scholarship recipient at the May 20 Council
th
meeting. It was Council consensus to wait on setting date and time until such
time that Councilmember Simonson returns to the City on May 4.
th
#3 Presentation on progress of Public Improvement District (PID) project
and possible action setting a public hearing date related to such project.
Mr. Marquez briefly explained the process of establishing the PID. Enough
signatures were gathered on petition allowing the project (PID-FM3009/IH35) to
move forward. The money is in place as part of bond package, and the next step
is to get the project together. There is a timeline to officially set up the project,
which Ms. Connie Lock from Fulbright & Jaworski will explain.
Ms. Connie Lock passed out a new timeline schedule and list of property owners
who have responded. She explained all requirements have been exceeded
allowing the City to proceed to the next step. There are two phases: Creation of
PID and Assessment. The creation of PID requires: petition, property owner
response, published notice of public hearing, (June 3, 2003), adopting resolution,
etc. If approval is granted, of resolution, the district becomes effective once it is
published. She noted the City would manage the PID once it is established.
The second phase: Assessment Process. The property owners will serve as an
Advisory Board, creating a service plan, which includes an assessment plan.
After creation of the Assessment plan, it would be introduced to Council who in
turn would create a tax roll, which would be filed with City Secretary for public
inspection. The process again would involve setting of public hearing, to
consider the tax roll. Depending on Advisory Committee time frame, and all
other aspects, Council would be looking at first reading of ordinance considering
tax roll and assessments sometime around August 2003.
Mr. Marquez commented on having contacted Tavie Murphy, Tax Assessor and
being advised that she has assessed numbers for each property owner. Once
everything is in place, these numbers would be placed on each individuals tax
roll. A statement would be sent every year (three year set up) or the individual
may choose to pay up front. The funds (I & S) would be targeted to pay the city
share of bond.
Ms. Lock noted the total estimated cost would be approximately $717,000 plus.
Of this the city has agreed to pay 25% of costs up to the $717, 000, and 100% of
costs in excess of $717,000.
Mr. Marquez mentioned he is anticipating going to condemnation with at least
one of the (12) twelve property owners.
Mr. Marquez advised a map would be provided showing what the project would
look like. There are plans for a median (put in by TXDOT-their contribution), two
roads and traffic signal. The businesses not only are contributing by assessment,
but also some businesses such as Diamond Shamrock/McDonalds have agreed
to open up some interconnects, so traffic does not have to go out onto FM3009.
In conclusion, Ms. Lock commented completion is scheduled for sometime
around August 19 however, will make every effort for it to be sooner. As of
th
today everything looks good, unless the project runs into problem with property
owners, etc.
At this time, Mr. Marquez asked Council if item #14 could be moved up on the
agenda. Ms. Lock would be involved in discussion relative to this matter.
#14 Discussion on possible revisions to Solicitor’s Ordinance.
Mr. Marquez explained the matter before Council comes after discussion,
concerns and suggestions by Councilmember Douglas. A copy of ordinance has
been provided for Council review.
Councilmember Douglas explained his concerns are relative to entire wording of
ordinance. He believes ordinance (wording) doesn’t apply to established
business owners (soliciting - i.e. hand bills) within the City of Schertz. In
discussion among Council relative to businesses within the City, Council agreed
that businesses within the City would be charged the permit fee of $30 (business
charge) and each individual person with the business the investigation fee of $10
each. Council agreed businesses within the City shouldn’t be treated differently
from other individuals who solicit within the City.
In more discussion by Council the following issues were addressed; Section 13.1
Definitions. Councilmember Douglas believes clarification is warranted. Section
13.4 Exclusions from Applicability of this Chapter required clarification also.
Councilmember Douglas believes handbill distribution is part of soliciting.
Members of Council believe distribution of such material (handbill) is in part
soliciting, however, the individual (s) are not making contact with residents. Is it
soliciting or not? Council agreed it was, however, this type of soliciting is not
mentioned in the ordinance and will not be considered as such. It was Council
consensus to add such a statement to Section 13.4 excluding handbills as being
part of soliciting. Section 13.11 Underage solicitors would also be adjusted to
reflect the age of (16) sixteen years of age.
Mr. Marquez advised Council changes to ordinance would be made to reflect
those items discussed, and would be ready for review at next meeting.
#4 Discussion and possible action on mid-year budget adjustments
(General Fund).
Mr. Marquez pointed out General Fund is quite lengthy and added that
remaining fund balances would be provided at next workshop. He commented
some mid-year adjustments have been made. Such adjustments include re-
balance certain items in several departments. One mid-year adjustment is
recommendation of (3) three additional staff members; staff members to Finance,
Community Development and Facility Maintenance.
It was pointed out personnel for new Fire Station coming on line at the end of
year is planned for next fiscal year budget. Those staff additions wouldn’t reflect
mid-year adjustments.
Mayor Baldwin mentioned all the media coverage on cities experiencing major
problems with revenue. Revenues not materializing at the rate expected. Is the
City experiencing any of this? Mr. Marquez advised the City of Schertz is not.
The City’s tax revenue is doing quite well and has exceeded original budget
estimates.
Discussion followed on two other adjustments, City Insurance and Information
Technology having adjustments of $1,000 and $8,000. Adjustment of $1,000
under City Insurance was explained as enabling the city to lower health care fees
by allowing a co-pay of $50 for emergency visits to be paid by City. Of course
this only applies to employees that use it, in a form of reimbursement. The next
adjustment of $8,000 under Information Technology reflects the cost of services,
an increase to the phone bill.
Mr. Marquez explained adding of bond proceeds that normally aren’t seen as
part of the budget. As indicated, a notation explains how the money will be
spent. Identifying precisely. He pointed out that excluding the bond money the
City is under revenue expenditures.
He went on to say that there are two items requiring re-appropriation that will
need to be done at next regular meeting. One is relative to codification to the
Code of Ordinances. $15,0000 was appropriated last year and needs to be
brought forward. The second, police vehicles purchased last year that weren’t
delivered until after the budget year. These two amounts: $15,000 and $57,000
need to be re-appropriated. In conclusion, he stated the City is still ahead of the
game.
Without further discussion, Councilmember Wilenchik moved to approve the
mid-year budget adjustments (General Fund) as presented. Councilmember
Agee seconded the motion, which carried with the following votes.
AYES: Councilmembers Douglas, Agee, Wilenchik and Greenwald.
NAY: None
#5 Discuss ordinance regarding drainage fees.
Mr. Marquez explained ordinance has been discussed several times, and a
revised copy has been passed out this evening for review. This is the time to take
a look at the rate structure and other issues relative to drainage fees. Public
Hearing is scheduled for 20 of May, which is plenty of time to review and make
th
adjustments. He indicated the rate structure (the use of LUE, Living Unit
Equivalent) has been simplified.
Council would review and be ready for scheduled public hearing.
#6 Discuss bids on proposed waterline –IH10 and FM 1518 Project.
Mr. Marquez explained that this project would finally loop all things happening
along Interstate IH10. He pointed out that only seven bids out of the eight were
made available to Council. The eighth bid was passed out at this time. The
recommendation remains the same: Diamond S Construction Company in the
amount of $144,613.74. Council had no concerns with the bid presentation and
would be ready to take action at next week Tuesday’s meeting.
#7 Consider and take action setting a public hearing date for a zoning
change request.
Mr. Manager explained the project before Council has been before the Planning
and Zoning Commission (which was denied), and it is his understanding the
developer properly appealed the decision made by the Commission;
unfortunately the Commission did not have all facts provided relative to the
issue. The map provided in Council packet indicates the portion of property
(darken area), which was intended to have homes built right up to the access
road. The Commission opposed this concept. Since then the property owner has
agreed to allow normal zoning (GB) to the area in question. However, due to a 6-
month waiting period (UDC requirement) Planning and Zoning cannot revisit
the issue. For this reason, the owner is appealing to Council. He has adjusted the
plan to accommodate the Commission concerns. This is an unusual situation; the
project is a good project, the property owner requested annexation into the City.
He is appealing to Council due to time limitation might jeopardize the project.
Councilmember Greenwald moved to set public hearing for Hilstar
Development for May 20, 2003. Councilmember Agee seconded the motion,
th
which carried with the following votes.
AYES: Councilmembers Douglas, Agee, Wilenchik and Greenwald.
NAY: None
#8 Discussion regarding Borgfeld Road.
Mr. Marquez explained the issue before Council comes at the request of a
Councilmember. He has asked engineers to take a good hard look at the
numbers, what would it cost? The issue is cost. The cost includes doing drainage,
sidewalks, etc. which would make the road accessible. He was advised the
project would cost approximately $698,000.
In brief discussion Council reviewed different options. Council agreed to pursue
the MPO as an option. Get the project on a list, and possibly looking at Cibolo to
help is another option or a joint venture for both cities.
It was Council consensus that a list be comprised of projects have them
prioritizes and when money becomes available have these projects completed in
order of priority.
#9 Discussion regarding traffic signal at FM 3009 and Live Oak Road.
Mr. Marquez explained this a similar project. Funding again is the issue. He
noted having received a verbal pledge of $32,000 from neighboring city in
support. However, the City of Schertz does not have the remaining $70,000 that
takes to complete the project. Again, this project is fairly high on the priority list.
The County money given to the city ($25,000) was not for this project. There was
some confusion, however, the money may be used for the project if it is Council’s
wish. This would leave a balance of $40,000 plus. With the City’s commitment of
$25,000, would leave an additional $18,000 to $20,000 to complete the project.
In brief discussion, Council had understood that the county with help with an
additional $25,000. Apparently, there was some confusion because the city will
only receive $25,000. Council agreed that the light is high priority when it comes
to safety. There was mention of an ongoing project: The county is dealing with
sale of property in the area. However, at this time the project is in negotiation.
No way of knowing when it may happen. The County plans to give the City the
proceeds, which would be approximately $50,000. If this occurs the City can
proceed with the light.
It was pointed out that if money becomes available, the City wouldn’t have to go
through the process in dealing with State procedure. At this time the best signal
contractor is working on the Schertz Parkway project, all the City needs is to
initiate a change order for that particular intersection, and possibly shorten the
process. However, would it be in the time frame the city is looking for? It was
suggested that possibly getting State Rep. Edmund Kuempel involved would
help speed up the process. Any, and all options should be looked into, Council
believes this project is a high priority and consensus is to start the project rolling.
#10 Discussion regarding GASB 34.
Mr. Marquez stated that in giving a direct answer to Councilmember asking
about GASB 34 and what has been done in relation to the issue, he stated not
much has been done. One thing that has been done is setting up charts of
accounts. He added that the new person coming on line (Finance Dept.) would
help relieve other personnel in the department giving them an opportunity to get
it underway. Another thing started in relation to the process is identifying fixed
assets. These aren’t finished because it’s taking longer than anticipated.
Identifying depreciation will be next in the process plus others. This issue is
bigger than anyone thought and will be ongoing.
It was mentioned that GASB 34 has a time line of September 3, 2003, and the
intent was to have it in place by then, however, this is not going to happen. The
City won’t be alone, 98% of all the other cities are facing the same problem. The
worst that may happen is that it would be mentioned in the management letter
as part of City audit. As mentioned some pieces are in place and the work will
continue. In conclusion, the Interim Finance Director as well as personnel in the
department will be attending classes to get a better handle on the issue.
At this time Council agreed that agenda item #12 and #13 would be discussed
out of order. Item # 11 discussed after item #13.
#12 Discussion regarding codification of ordinances.
Mr. Marquez pointed out process of codification is a lengthy process. It is an
ongoing project in the City Secretary Department. A company has been selected
to start the process: have entered into a contract with company who will provide
a finished product. In addition to the Code Book, the Unified Development Code
(UDC) will be added to the process. As pointed out in information provided by
the Department, only ordinances through December 31, 2002 have been
provided. The initial Code Book would get updated quarterly and eventually get
caught up to date. The cost would run approximately $24,000 for both the Code
Book and UDC. Legal counsel has reviewed the contract and before selection of
the Company, the company was checked out, it’s the best out there, well known
and respected.
He went on say, thirty copies (30) of Code Book would be provided for
distribution among Council and Department Head. The City is looking at June or
July for delivery, however it could possibly be longer. The process has started
and Council will soon see a finished product.
#13 Discussion on proposed Memorial Plaques.
Mr. Marquez pointed out that as part of Council packet are designs of proposed
plaques to memorialize past Police, Fire and EMS Chief, and others. Staff has
come up with some designs, staying consistent with plaques that are already in
place. Plaques are 16”x20” in bronze to match existing plaques. The costs for the
plaques are $950 each. The question know becomes who, and how many.
Council believed the number of proposed plaques were only three plaques,
however, this evening there are numerous designs with many more names.
Assistant City Manager Bierschwale reminded Council of past Councilmember
McDonald comments regarding “City Policy Naming Buildings”; that someone
has to be deceased before recognition. This is the reason for the number plaques;
each Department wanted to make sure no one was left out. It would be up to
Council to finalize and possibly come up with certain criteria to follow. It was
noted that plaques would be budgeted for next year.
It was Council consensus to have a plan worked up first with all issues discussed
and then presented to Council for final approval. Council was happy with the
designs presented, however would like each Department to finalize it’s own
plan.
#11 Discussion regarding Mayor and Councilmember compensation.
Mr. Marquez noted that survey included in Council packet was complied by City
Secretary, Norma Althouse. The survey shows a wide range of paid
compensation. The survey cities included are: in surrounding area, outside area
and some close in population. It was surprising to learn what other cities are
doing, as opposed to the city’s compensation procedures. Some are paying as
much as $400/month, with car allowance, while others are receiving no
compensation.
Councilmember Wilenchik read excerpt from City Charter, Section 4.04,
Compensation. It was pointed out that to date, compensation for Mayor and
Councilmembers are as follows:
Mayor - $5 Regular Meeting
$10 Workshop
Council - $3 Regular Meeting
$5 Workshop
Mr. Marquez commented that given the number of meetings, the number of
other places beyond City Council duties (liaison duties, ex-officio) covered by
Council, he believes compensation to cover travel time, and other costs, etc. are
warranted.
As specified in the charter, Mayor and Councilmembers who are elected for a
new term would not be eligible during the term elected. For instance this being
election year for the following, Councilmembers Place 3, 4 & 5, the Mayor,
Councilmembers Place 1 & 2 wouldn’t be eligible until 2004, and
Councilmembers Place 3, 4 &5 until 2005.
In brief discussion, City Manager Marquez recommended a flat dollar amount of
$400/monthly for the Mayor and $200/monthly for Councilmembers plus
reimbursement of expenses was a good starting point. If there is Council
consensus to proceed, a proposal may be drawn up using both options, flat
dollar amount per meeting or flat salary amount. It was also suggested it could
be placed as agenda item for discussion and possible action. It was pointed out
that having such compensation might draw interest in holding public office.
In conclusion, it was Council consensus to have City Manager work up proposal
on compensation and include reimbursement of expenses incurred for travel etc.
To simplify, it was suggested to begin compensation all at the same time instead
as required by charter: Mayor and Councilmembers staring May 2005. Council
had no problem with suggestion. Mr. Marquez advised he would work up
proposal and possibly have something for next workshop session.
#15 Items by City Manager
General Announcements
Mr. Marquez made comments on the following:
??
G5 rate- What City pays for electrical services are increasing,
approximately 5%. He has taken a look at the budget and advised the City
is all right.
??
Advised on upcoming National Police Week and the introduction of
Proclamation next week. He also mentioned schedule of events of May
14, wreath ceremony starting at 11 a.m. in front of the Police Dept.
th
??
Mentioned that for those residents that use gas, the rates have
substantially gone down.
??
Noted the host city for the TML Conference will be San Antonio this year.
The Conference is scheduled to run from November 19-22, 2003. He asked
for some feedback on type of accommodation wanted by Council. Council
advised possibly a hotel suite in walking distance from the Conference
Center.
??
Reminded everyone of City Picnic scheduled for Saturday, May 31.
st
??
Referred to letter from Ms. Vaughan with Armstrong, Vaughan &
Associates (City Audit Firm) informing that the firm will be unable to
provide audit services for the end of fiscal year. The City will start
immediately to locate another firm.
??
Advised that he and the Mayor are scheduled to meet with Col. Draper,
Wing Commander, RAFB, on May 6. Advised there was a list of things to
th
discuss such as EMS Service, ACUIZ, Fire Department, Lower Seguin
Road issues and selling of water.
??
Referred to article on proposal to restructure the Texas sales tax statue.
#16 Items by Council
General Announcements
Councilmember Douglas
Liaison EDC
??
Had no comments.
Councilmember Simonson
4-B Board
Liaison BVYA
??
Councilmember Simonson was absent.
Councilmember Agee
4-B Board
Liaison Schertz Housing Authority
Liaison Schertz Library Board
??
Reminded everyone to get out and vote on Saturday. It was mentioned
that early voting turn out compared to last election held February was
about the same.
Councilmember Wilenchik
4-B Board
Liaison Schertz Humane Society
Liaison HOA Coalition
??
Reminded everyone of Doggy Dash Run scheduled for 8 a.m. Saturday,
May 3. 80 per-registered participates thus far and of those most are
rd
walkers. Anticipating approximately 50 to 75 runners. Expect to see 120 to
150 people total. At this time he wanted to thank Johnny Bierschwale,
Police Chief and Gail Douglas for their help and support on the upcoming
event.
??
Commented having attended TSAC meeting of last night, where the
committee discussed going to a Commission versus a Committee. He
offered if wanted by the Committee a Council liaison. He would be
available if the committee desires to have council liaison. He is free on
Thursday.
??
Asked about the Court of Record issue. He was looking for it to be an
agenda item this time. He was advised the issue would possibly be
discussed at the same time of Judge Padgett evaluation, which is coming
up soon.
Councilmember Greenwald
4-B Board
Ex-officio P & Z Commission
Ex-officio SSLG Corp.
??
Asked about the City Manager’s evaluation. He was advised evaluation is
due in July. Evaluation forms would be provided to Council at the next
workshop session for review.
??
Wanted to thank everyone involved in the rehab work done on Schertz
Parkway and Curtiss. It is really great.
#17 Items by Mayor
General Announcements
??
Asked for Council consensus on the food provided at workshop sessions.
It was Council consensus to continue with the food.
#18 ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, Mayor Baldwin adjourned the
meeting at 9:15 p.m.
________________________
Mayor, City of Schertz, Texas
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Secretary, City of Schertz, Texas