HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN OCT 19 1999 M I N U T E S - CITY OF BEAUMONT
Lulu L. Smith DAVID W. MOORE, MAYOR John K. Davis, Mayor Pro Tem
Guy N. Goodson PARTNERSHIP IN GOVERNANCE Andrew P. Cokinos
Bobbie J. Patterson OCTOBER 19, 1999 Becky Ames
Lane Nichols, City Attorney Stephen J. Bonczek, City Manager Barbara Liming,City Clerk
The City Council of the City of Beaumont, Texas, met in a special Partnership in Governance
session with administration on October 19, 1999, at the Texas Energy Museum, 600 Main Street,
Beaumont, Texas, at 11:30 a.m.
Council present at the meeting were: Mayor Moore, Mayor Pro Tern Davis, Councilmembers Smith,
Goodson, Cokinos, Ames, and Patterson. Also, present were City staff members: Stephen J.
Bonczek, City Manager; Lane Nichols, City Attorney; Barbara Liming, City Clerk; Kyle Hayes,
Executive Assistant to the City Manager/Economic Development Director; Maurine GraY,
Community Services Director; Beverly Hodges, Finance Officer; Glenda Lundy, Human Resources
Director; Kirby Richard, Central Services Director; Tom Warner, Public Works Director; Ingrid
Holmes, Health Director; Luke Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director; Tom Scofield, Police Chief;
Michel Bertrand, Fire Chief; and S. A. Webb, Water Utilities Director. Facilitators were Vicki
Holloman, Mobil Oil Corporation; and Michael Clayton, Better Business Bureau. Other interested
citizens were in attendance as shown on the attached roster.
Lunch was served between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Mobil Oil Human Resources Manager Vicki
Holloman, co-facilitator, began the session by reviewing the Mission Statement and Guiding
Principles, the agenda, and the Council survey as shown in Exhibit "A."
After a short break, President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau Michael Clayton, co-
facilitator, resumed the session with introduction of financial and budgetary challenges and led
discussion about reinventing, rightsizing and re-engineering government, financing alternatives, a
revised 2001 budget presentation, strategic issues and action plan as shown in Exhibit "B."
The Partnership in Governance adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
David W. Moore, Mayor
i
Barbara Liming, City Clerk
PARTNERSHIP IN GOVERNANCE
EVENTS
Lunch
Introduction - Mayor/Council Expectations
Concepts of Consensus Building
PRIMARY EVENT
Partnership in Governance - The Council Administration Relationship
Roles and Responsibilities
Communication and Cooperation
Sharing of Concerns and Solutions
Implementation of a New Beginning
SECONDARY EVENT
Financial and Budgetary Challenges
Reinventing, Rightsizing and Re-engineering Government
- Ideas to reduce costs, generate revenue and increase service quality
-Customer service and continuous quality improvement
-Commitment to quality and value
Financing Alternatives
-User fees, reduction in service/staffing levels, use of fund balance, storm drainage
utility fee, recycling, sale of landfill capacity, impact fees, termination or transfer
of service responsibility
EXHIBIT "A"
Revised 2001 Budget Presentation
-Program/performance budget
-Citizen involvement in budget process
-2001 Budget calendar and review process
Strategic Issues
-2001 budgetary issues of significant impact
Action Plan
-Strategic directions - commitment to action
FORMAT
Dress: Casual or Business Attire
Participants: Mayor/City Council, City Manager, Department Directors,
Facilitator
Invited Guests: Chairperson of each advisory board, Chamber of Commerce
President, Union Presidents and news media
PARTNERSHIP IN GOVERNANCE
COUNCIL EVALUATION
In an effort to enhance the ability of the Council to function effectively as a team, a self-
evaluation is provided on key responsibility areas for a legislative body. This essentially
becomes an internal review by Councilmembers of your perceptions on how well you work
together. The following Council evaluation form is provided from the ICMA Elected
Officials Handbook I - Setting Goals for Action (third edition), for your consideration. The
active involvement of the Mayor/Council and City Manager in the self-evaluation will
enhance understanding and further the important political relationship that exists.
The evaluation process can define those areas that may be an impediment to the Council
functioning as a participative team. Political ambitions and factionalism among elected
bodies can easily occur. This can hinder effective decision making and formulation of City
policy. A difference of opinion.for whatever reason is certainly an important part of the
democratic process. The key factor to be considered is that the Council makes decisions
based on a honest perception of what is in the best interest of citizens from all segments of
the community.
GOAL SETTING
1. Are established Council goals realistic within the time frame stated?
Almost always 4 Sometimes 3 Never o
2. Do Councilmembers participate sufficiently in implementing goals once they are
established?
Almost always 2 Sometimes 5 Never 0
3. Is the public adequately informed about Council goals?
Almost always 2 Sometimes 4 Never 1
POLICY MAKING
1. Are Council positions and policies effectively communicated?
Almost always 4 Sometimes 3 Never 0
2. Does the Council make hard choices and politically unpopular decisions when
necessary?
Almost always 5 Sometimes 2 Never 0
BUDGETING
1. Does the Council clearly understand the City's financial resources and make sound
decisions on prioritizing public spending?
Almost always 4 Sometimes 3 Never 0
2. Is there adequate encouragement of broad public participation in the budgeting
process?
Almost always 1 Sometimes 5 Never 1
3. Does the Council avoid unbudgeted appropriations?
Almost always 3 Sometimes 4 Never 0
4. Does the Council consider the budget"their budget" as opposed to thinking of it as
the "staff's budget?"
Almost always 3 Sometimes 1 Never 2
Would like input into budget planning prior to formulation budget
not static, changes made as required.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
1. Does the Council encourage adequate public input at Council meetings?
Almost always 7 Sometimes 0 Never 0
2. Does each Councilmember effectively participate in Council meetings?
Almost always 6 Sometimes 1 Never 0
3. Does the staff have adequate opportunity for input before the Council makes decision
on an issue?
Almost always 5 Sometimes 2 Never 0
4. Is Council meeting time well utilized?
Almost always 1 Sometimes 6 Never 0
Would like backup information for big items with more advance study time.
5. Are there items discussed by the Council that should be more properly handled to
allow for public and/or staff input?
Almost always 1 Sometimes 6 Never 0
Would like thorough & complete information submitted with item.
6. Are relevant facts and opinions expressed before decisions are made or Council
position stated?
Almost always 4 Sometimes 2 Never 1
Important that all facts be presented fdirly-.and without bias.
7. Is direction given to staff clear and concise?
Almost always 2 Sometimes 5 Never
Stressed clarity for both Council and staff.
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
1. Is there adequate public participation in board and/or committee member selection?
Almost always 3 Sometimes 4 Never 0
2. Are board/committee members selected based upon ability to serve the community
rather than personal friendships?
Almost always 2 Sometimes 5 Never 0
3. Does the Council place sufficient emphasis on balancing board/committee
membership in order to assure the total community is represented?
Almost always 5 Sometimes 2 Never 0
4. Does Council give appropriate consideration to board/committee recommendations?
Almost always Sometimes 2 Never 0
Discussed use of TV access channel , diversity of members , possible
interview procedure, and terms of office.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH STAFF
1. Does the Council provide a reasonable time frame for staff to accomplish
assignments?
Almost always 6 Sometimes 1 Never 0
2. Does the Council take the impact on staff time into consideration when changing its
priorities?
Almost always 2 Sometimes 5 Never 0
3. Does the Council give adequate consideration to staff recommendations?
Almost always 5 Sometimes 2 Never 0
4. Do Councilmembers use the established chain of command when dealing with
administrative issues?
Almost always 5 Sometimes 2 Never o
Discuss Charter requirements, importance of communication, chain
of command, directing citizen complaints , & balance of views.
COUNCIL RELATIONSHIPS
1. Allowing for differences of philosophy or opinions on given issues, do
Councilmembers respect one another's opinion? Need mutual respect of
opinions , but vote with conscience for fairness & equity of city.
Almost always 2 Sometimes 5 Never 0
2. Does the Council function as a team?
Almost always 4 Sometimes 3 Never 0
Would like better consensus & less 4-3 votes .
3. Do individual Councilmembers unduly consume Council meeting time?
Almost always 4 Sometimes 2 Never 1
4. Do Councilmembers deal with issues openly?
Almost always 3 Sometimes 4 Never 0
Discussed value of workshops and potential relocation.
5. Do individual Councilmembers excessively politicize the public process?
Almost always_ Sometimes 2 Never 1
Need to be open & honest with constituents about scope of expectation -
6. Do Councilmembers' attitudes and actions reflect a sense of public service rather'
than personal interest?
Almost always . 3 Sometimes 4 Never
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY MANAGER
1. Is the relationship between Councilmembers and the City Manager open and
honest?
Almost always 3 Sometimes 3 Never. 1
2. Does the Council function as a unit in giving direction to the City Manager?
Almost always o Sometimes 7 Never o
3. Is there mutual respect between the Council and City Manager?
Almost always 2 Sometimes 5 Never o
4. Is there adequate opportunity for the City Manager to offer input into the decision-
making process?
Almost always 5 Sometimes 2 Never o
Discussed importance of City Manager expressing recommendations,
adjustment and getting acquainted period with new City Manager,
earning respect and developjng relationship.
Sewer Capital Improvements
The City's Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Inflow/Infiltration Study is also near completion.
The study revealed that over 80% of the City's sanitary sewer system is over fifty years old
and is in need of repairs. The sanitary sewer system has greatly exceeded its design life
expectancy. The necessity to expedite and implement the sanitary sewer improvement
programs are to comply with federal regulations pertaining to sanitary sewer overflows.
(Overflows during rainfall events carry heavy penalties up to $25,000 per day per event);
improve reliability of sewer customer service and reduce maintenance costs; and salvage the
City's existing 700 miles of sanitary sewer collection system. The estimated costs for these
improvements are $70 million.
• Should the City increase sanitary sewer user fees to repay the necessary debt
service?
• Should the City adopt a fixed sanitary sewer surcharge?
Per Water utilities Director , plan many cities have adopted.
• Should the City increase ad valorem taxes to repay the debt service?
Consensus improvements- necessary, prefer fixed surcharge over tax
increase, discussed 3 methods of payment . dedocated sircharge, &
educating public regarding federal regulations , necessaary repairs,
& scope of system.
Water Capital Improvements
The water system capital improvement plans for the next ten years are nearing completion.
These projects include improvements to the City's Neches River raw water canal system and
the water treatment facilities. The water system improvements are required to comply with
mandatory federal regulations (Safe Drinking Water Act) and to provide an adequate water
supply through the year 2020. The estimated costs for these improvements are $30 million.
• Should the City increase water user fees to repay the necessary debt service?
• Should the City increase ad valorem taxes to repay the debt service?
• Should the City investigate the feasibility of privatizing the water system?
NOTE: Privatization - A public and private partnership with a water utility
operating company could be a means of financing the needed improvements
to reduce the City's capital expenditures or spread those expenditures over
a longer period of time).
Discussed user consumption, regional service, state and federal
regulations , rate control , public perception of privatizing system,
and staff requested to provide rate study information.
EXHIBIT "B"
Creation of Storm Water Utility
The 1987 amended Clean Water act requires municipalities of 100,000 or more to establish
storm water management programs. A storm water utility provides a community with a cost-
effective alternative to address storm water management programs. The basis for
establishing most storm drainage service charges and rates is the degree to which a customer
uses or contributes runoff to the storm drainage program/system. The degree of use is
typically related to the property's contribution of storm water to the drainage system owned,
operated and maintained by the jurisdiction. The need for comprehensive approaches toward
storm water management stems from the alteration of natural storm water conditions and
from the development of"impervious area." Thus the degree or amount of use, and therefore
the size or amount of the charge, is in proportion to magnitude of the property owner's
contribution to the total volume of storm water runoff. A properly established storm water
utility:
1. Generates a steady flow of revenue into an enterprise fund for maintenance and
capital improvements to the storm water drainage system. Typical maintenance
activities include ditching, street sweeping, ditch mowing, pipe replacement and
pipe flushing.
2. Provides for an equitable or "fair share" method of revenue collection under a
structured user fee. The residential community, along with the business
community, will both contribute their proportional share in service fees based on
their proportional share of the problem.
3. Creates a semi-autonomous entity that has the ability to borrow funds. This
separate and dedicated enterprise fund also improves a community's eligibility for
federal and state funding.
4. A storm water utility fee would replace approximately $4 million in general fund
expenditures that could be used to pay for other services and provide financial
stability.
0 Should the City establish a storm water utility fee and fund to charge all costs to
maintain and operate the storm water system?
Investigate feasibility.
Recycling
City wide curbside recycling began February 1992. Since that time the program has
experienced ups and downs in participation by residents, volume of materials recycled, and
market conditions. Over the years the department has addressed those chaiw4)s5 in "
participation by implementing program changes to address the various situations. During
FY1999, total landfill space used was 230,000 cubic yards. If 1,620 tons or recycled waste
was put into the garbage.cans, 100% of recycling cost would be saved and landfill space
usage would increase by 1.l%. To put it another way, it would take 89 years of recycling
to use one (1)year of landfill space at the current volumes of waste disposal and recycling.
The Administration is seeking direction for the future of the Recycling Program considering
that budgeted expenditures exceed budgeted revenues.
• Should the City continue the program as is at a net cost to the Solid Waste fund of
approximately $250,000 annually?
• Should the City continue the program as is and increase the monthly solid waste
fee by $.65 to cover the cost of recycling. The current fee of $10.85 per month
would increase to $11.50 per month.
• Should the City unplement a citizen drop-off program at a specified site or
multiple sites? Citizens would be required to bring materials to the site and a City
employee would receive the material and provide assistance to citizens. The cost
of this type operation would be approximately $35,000 per year per site. Drop off
sites usually collect only a small amount of material because of inconvenience to
citizens.
• Should the City provide citizen drop-off sites without an employee? These sites
usually end up with materials contaminated with garbage and trash resulting in
everything going to the landfill. The cost of an unstaffed site(s) would be
approximately $10,000 per year.
• Should the City eliminate the program and save approximately $250,000 annually.
This would probably result in public opposition from environmentally conscious
citizens.
Discussed options, public education, marketable items , environment ,
curbside pick-up, continuance of program in modified form to lower
cost , drop-off program, value received from compost, good environmental
image , and request fee schedule from other similar sized cities .
Selling of Landfill Space
The Clean Community Department has been deficit budgeting for the past two (2) years. To
increase revenue without rate increases, the City Council sell landfill space to others.
Currently only 18% of the waste entering the Landfill is charged disposal fees. The
remaining 82%is hauled by City trucks and non-paying customers such as citizens, Drainage-
District 6, and Goodwill Industries.
If the waste hauled by paying customers is increased by 100,000 cubic yards per year, it
would generate $500,000 annually without any additional operating expenses. However, the
life of the Landfill will be reduced from 21.5 years to 18.7 years. During FYI 999, the
Landfill received 850,000 cubic yards of waste and $644,000 of revenue. An additional
100,000 cubic yards would be a 12% increase in waste resulting in a 78% increase in
revenue. An additional $500,000 a year for 18 years represents $9,000,000 in exchange for
three (3) years of Landfill life.
To address the question of"what happens after the Landfill reaches full capacity," the City
currently owns 250 acres of land adjacent to the southern boundary of the Landfill. This 250
acres would be proposed as the next landfill site.
• Should the Council approve staff soliciting contracts for waste disposal for a
maximum of 100,000 cubic yards annually, in effect, selling three years of landfill
space for $9,000,000. Possible opportunity to leverage revenues ,
become more efficient , provide funding
for education for recycling, discussion
of rates and landfill certification.
Port Channel Deepening and Widening
An important issue for the future of the Port of Beaumont is the project to deepen and widen
the channel. There is a deepening and widening committee established through appointment
by Judge Griffith. The purpose of the committee is to develop local industry support for the
Feasibility Study. This project will increase the width of the channel from 400 to 500 feet
and the depth from 40 to 45 feet. The study is an $8 million project. The Federal Army
Corp is providing $4.1 million with a local match of$3.9 million. Currently the Navigation
District is providing $365,000, the County $1.3 million and the Port $500,000 which leaves
a balance of $1.75 million needed to complete the study. It is important that the local
financial support for the study be achieved this year or there is a risk that the Corp of
Engineers allocation of$700,000 of federal funds will be diverted to other projects. Last
year the Army Corp allocation of$365,000 was lost due to lack of local participation. The
Corp has extended these monies on two occasions and will probably not consider a third
opportunity to reallocate it to the Port of Beaumont.
• Should the Navigation District and Port take a primary role in providing the local
share for the feasibility study?
• Is the economic development benefit of the project to the City so significant that
Cit �ouncil should consider participatiog in the cost of the feasibility study?
Discussion of 1 entities involved, indus ry involvement , and stance of
waiting to see progress.
Municipal Transit
The annual operating cost for the Beaumont Municipal Transit System is approximately $2.8
million annually. Funding sources to cover the operating costs include farebox revenue, the
Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) and the City of Beaumont. A breakdown of the funding sources for Fiscal Year
2000 is provided below:
Farebox $ 500,000
FTA 1,150,000
TxDOT 463,180
City (General Fund) 686.820
Total $2,800,000
The amount of federal and state funds received each year has remained fairly constant.
However, there is the potential that these funds may be substantially reduced in future years.
The ability to maintain or decrease the City's contribution can only be accomplished through
an increase in farebox revenue or a decrease in service.
Does Council agree to:
• Raise fixed route cash fares?
If so, it would be: Adult from $.75 to $1
Youth from $35 to $.75
Disabled and Elderly from $35 to $.50
• Raise fixed route monthly passes?
If so, it would be: Adult from $24 to $30
Youth from $15 to $25
Disabled and Elderly from $15 to $20
• Raise STS fares?
If so, it would be: Do away with monthly passes.
Non-social service agency client from $1.50 to $2.
Non-social service agency client on advanced reservation from
$1.50 to $4.
Social service agency clients from $1.50 to $2 and charge the
social service agency an additional $13 for a total of$15 (BMT's
total trip cost).
Additionally, in order to encourage STS clients to use the fixed
route system, offer any one currently using STS the opportunity
to purchase a monthly fixed route pass at a big discount ($5 for
a monthly pass) if they will ride fixed route rather than STS for
the month.
• Reduce services hours and/or reduce frequency of service?
• Consider having the employee group medicalilife insurance coverage, worker's
compensation, and vehicle liability insurance provided by the City?
• Promote the bus wrap advertising program to get more advertisers on board?
NOTE: Remember that the City share of the operating budget is around $700,000
out of $2,800,000 which equates to about 25%. So, as an example, if
$100,000 is reduced in operating expenses, that only equates to saving the
City around $25,000.
Discussed extended hours ridership, FTF requirements , regional trans-
portation system, past systems , consistent schedules throughout
holiday season, cost of STS, fee structure, tiered level of increase,
bus advertising and additional service.
Relocation of Rail Interchange Yard
A feasibility study was conducted to determine if the Port's rail interchange yard located
behind City Hall could be relocated. The funding for the study was shared by the Port, City
and a private developer on a one third basis. The preliminary study found that the relocation
of the rail interchange yard to the old College Avenue Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific)
yard is feasible. This location would provide the Port the opportunity to develop a 400-car
interchange yard, maintain its favorable switching operations with all servicing railroads and
decrease rail traffic in the Main Street area. Potential obstacles include obtaining ownership
of the yard and construction of a new track from the yard to the Port. The location of the
new track would cross Franklin near the old Entex building and cross Park and Pennsylvania
north of Pipkin Park. All new street crossings are proposed to be at grade crossings. The
estimated cost to complete this project is $2,500,000. This cost does not include the
purchase of the UP interchange yard, right-of-way acquisition for the new tracks and any
grade separations.
• Should the City participate financially in the relocation of the rail interchange yard?
• Should the City purchase the existing rail interchange property for approximately
$700,000 in lieu of other financial contributions?
• Should the construction costs for grade separations at Park and Pennsylvania be
included in the projects costs?
• Should the city contribute towards the construction costs for the grade separations?
Discussed development of Riverfront Park, land acquisition adding
to value and beauty of park, , investigate grants, private industry
participation, public/private partnership, underpass construction
costs , and directed exploration of federal funding to assist with
underpass construction.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Beaumont EMS provides emergency pre-hospital care in response to about 12,000 calls for
assistance each year. Approximately 7,500 patients are transported to local hospitals. The
EMS division is budgeted at $2,030,000 in expenditures and $950,000 in service fees. The
general fund therefore subsidizes the system by approximately $1,080,000 on an annual
basis. EMS services are provided by private providers in other communities where those
private providers are guaranteed the transfer business or under subsidized contractual
arrangements with the local government.
• Should the City continue to provide EMS as a subsidized City service?
• Should the City consider contracting for EMS service?
• Should the City establish operational standards for a privatized EMS system?
• Should the Administration explore the legality/feasibility of establishing an EMS user
fee on the utility bill to generate revenue to offset the general fund subsidy?
Continue with present plan, evaluate cost savings and workability.
Countywide Public Health System
Jefferson County has fragmented and decentralized Public Health system with health related
services being provided by the County and the Cities of Beaumont and Port Arthur. A
Countywide Public Health System would better able to coordinate and deliver health services
and may reduce the financial burden of the City.
• Should the Administration investigate the feasibility of consolidating the City Health
Department with a countywide Public Health system under the jurisdiction of
Jefferson County?
• Should the City support the creation of a hospital and Public Health district and Public
hospital facility as part of a County health system?
Good idea, not a present possibility, work toward future reality.
Fire Service Fees
The fire service across the nation is confronted with reducing its share of the City's general
fund while providing additional services and continuing to operate in compliance with
unfunded mandates. Over the years, the fire service has evolved beyond the primary mission
of providing fire protection by taking on many additional emergency response services.
Many fire service organizations use these additional services as alternative revenue sources
to help provide needed funds.
There are many services performed by the Fire Department that may provide the opportunity
to generate revenue.
Light Rescue Services
Any service rendered by fire department personnel using normal tools, equipment, and
procedures to free persons confined in wrecked vehicles or other confined spaces.
Such service may include stabilizing wrecked vehicles, assisting EMS, in preparing
and removing injured victims, or mitigation of hazards at an accident scene from
spilled fluids using absorbent or neutralizing materials.
• Heavy Rescue Services
Any service rendered by fire department personnel requiring the use of special
equipment or tools (jaws of life, air bag, etc.) To free persons entrapped, entangled,
or confined in a wrecked vehicle, collapsed structure, any confined space, stalled
elevator, high angle, (elevated) or other similar major rescue effort.
• Standby Fee
A fee to be charged for standby at situations where the Fire Official believes the
possibility exists for releases of hazardous materials.
• Excessive False Alarm Fee
A fee charged for responses to facilities with excessive false fire alarm activations.
• Hazardous Materials Response Fee
A fee for Hazmat response for washdown, patching & plugging, etc.
• Off-Line Fire System
A fee for agencies that inspect alarm systems, sprinkler systems, etc., and place them
out-of-service, but fail to notify the Fire Marshall's office.
Is Council consider interested in charging fees when Beaumont Fire/Rescue Services provide
certain services?
Investigate service fees as additional source of revenue.
Communication Network and Center - Not addressed - Consider in future
session.
Communication Network and Center will provide for the consolidation of the City's
communication network into a combined and centralized 800 MHz system. The project
includes the construction of a new communication center on the second floor of the new
Municipal Court Building for dispatching of fire, police, and EMS services, as well as
providing non-emergency and after-hours communications for operating departments. The
estimated cost to implement the 800 MHZ system citywide is $3 million based on 1998 cost
figures. An additional $lmillion would be required to construct the communication center.
• Is the City prepared to issue the debt necessary to accomplish the project?
• Would the Administration and Council consider the use of civilians for fire and EMS
dispatching?
4i Would Council commit to the 800 MHZ system if phased in over several years?
Energy Management - Not addressed - Consider in later session .
Currently, there is no control of energy consumption within City Hall, Civic Center, Julie
Rogers Theatre, Main Library and Police Buildings. Staff is gathering information on a new
approach to providing an energy management solution in these facilities. "Performance
contracting" is an alternative procurement method that implements a wide variety of energy
management strategies and badly needed capital projects and uses captured
energy/operational savings/guarantees as the funding source. The process allows for an
entity to upgrade or install new equipment and control systems which reduce energy
demands and pay for the project with the operational and energy cost savings. Guarantees
are issued by the performance contractor which will pay the differences if the projected
energy savings are not met.
• Should Council issue debt to implement the energy management strategies if savings
were generated to service the debt requirements?
• Should Council enter into an agreement for performance contracting which guarantees
energy savings from the design contractor?
Change of Election Date
House Bill 3257 amending §41.0052(a) of the Election Code allows municipalities an
extension until December 31, 1999 to change the date for elections. To change the election
date, an ordinance would have to be passed by Council and pre-clearance received from the
Justice Department. Councilmembers have expressed concern about voter apathy and for
greater voter participation. If a uniform election date in November is established on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November, this would coincide with County elections. If
this option is favorable, present terms for Councilmembers would be extended an additional
six months, from May to November. Also expenses of the election would be shared with
Jefferson County.
! Does Council support changing the City election date to coincide with County
elections?
Increased voter participation, Justice Department pre-clearance
required,prepare for Council consideration.
Improved Phone System - Not considered - Consider in future session.
Currently, the City's phone network contains approximately 1,100 telephones which
operate through four PBX's, twenty-three key systems and standard business lines. The
PBX's are located at City Hall, the Police Building, Fire Headquarters, and the Health
Department. These telecommunication switching systems were installed in 1988.
Certain desirable features such as Caller ID and Voice Mail cannot be fully integrated
into our existing PBX switches. In order to accommodate these features, the city would
be required to replace and upgrade the phone system at a total estimated cost of
$450,000. Although the system is not totally antiquated nor obsolete, future replacement
and upgrading are essential.
• Are the desired features a necessity?
• Should Council issue debt or expend the funds required to upgrade the phone
system?
Skateboard Park
The sport of skateboarding is growing nationwide faster than any other sport. Mainstream
America is now beginning to recognize the need for this type of recreational activity even
though it is still guided by a spirit of independence. Lately some interest has been shown by
City leaders to possibly build this type of facility in the community.
• Should the City build and operate a skateboard park?
• Should the City operate the facility through the Parks and Recreation Department?
• Should the City build and lease this facility to a private operator?
Favored idea, continue to research , discussed size , construction,parking ,
ownership, and suggested use of Xpiss park.
IDEA WORKSHOP 1:30 P.M.
ENERGY MUSEUM
No Formal Meeting
Later, Public Access
Politicize public process:
Nature of beast
Constituency perception
Take flak on tough, unpopular position
Public Access to council and neighborhood meetings
Council expectations vs. Manager
Change Direction -Indirection vs. Unit (Prior to 1:30 meeting)
Commission Style
Ability to make recommendation to Council
Team>Council/Manager
Recommendation - Manager/Staff
Review Stipulations of Service Requirements
3 year- 2 Terms= 6 Total Years
If not adequate time, Ext. Pressure/factor is cause.
City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Municipal Judges
How to get Council perception to Staff Managers
Sharing vs. Directing
Council needs to share with all, not just staff.
Commission Participation Appointments -
Planning Commission required component vs. Public input on appointments
Appointee not attending
Desire diversity of appointees
Interest in interviews of interested volunteers
List of potential volunteers
How to solicit nominees
Preferred evaluation of committees
Talk to Staff for Information or complaint or solve problem
Keep City Manager informed on issues being surfaced
Attend Meetings
Track service complaints by district/ward
Reports of follow up shared w/Council - helpful
Difficult to know what questions to ask - Perspectives different
Respect of opinion
Commission effective -Listening
Vary according to issue
More Input from Council prior to Administration recommending Budget to Council
Budget not standard? process; Changes are required-
Agenda- Late Friday for Tuesday Meeting
More Notice=Better preparation
All information needs to be presented.
May not thoroughly understand the item
Council needs to avoid micro-managing; but relevant facts/data need to be shared before decision.
Staff has clarity needs
Also, Ask questions- Sometimes post meeting.
Different of opinion - Both staff and Council
Could improve clarity of direction
Surprise on Team Results
Recently - Difficult
Fewer 4-3 votes
Alignment behind final answer
More time-----Feel Heard especially on difficult issues
Workshop Sessions
Educate ourselves before vote/action
Structure -- Informal/formal
1. Sewer Capital Improvements
A. Increase Sanitary User Fee?
Enterprise Fund - Should pay for itself
20 year program- $70MM Total
More at Beginning...Taper off for balance
B. Fixed Sanitary Surcharge? To repay bond; then stop.
Cost of Surcharge?
Charges everyone the same.
X. Ad Valorem Tax
Affects high value taxpayer
Need Debt repayment plan; assess impact
Difficult for average citizen to "see" improvement.
Need explanation as to `why' have to pay more money.
Fair to everybody-User Fee plan
Residential Usage is highest
Use same approach with Street User fees.
2. Water Capital Improvements
A. Increase Water User fee?
B. Prepare Study- Priv. 1 Tem and Reg'sm Issue
Ad Valorem Tax
Not option
Privatization - Consider evaluation of this option
Not option Control (State and Federal); Liability to Co. is city
Cost Effective: Sell Option- Have scale, engr's testing in house.
Why not fixed surcharge- Consumption Driven
$200M study complete
Testing required is expensive
Regionalization loss control of rates
3. Create Storm Water Utility?
Establish S.W. Utility Fee?
Residential Rate pay same
Commercial, etc.
All would be charged
Save $4MM for other uses(Worth investigating)
4. Recycling
Future of program as is?
Redesign program- Evaluate other city programs- $250M
Benefit of program not well known
Low participation
Drop-off sites lower cost option
Continue as is but increase fee
Drop off site with employee
Drop off site without employee - Problems with no staff-Limits Opportunity
Shopping Center, Schools, etc.---Not the park.
Eliminate -Wrong Message
Look at cumulative effect of all fees
Market for materials declined
Has decreased trash to landfill (trees, etc.)
Waste to reeducate or current program.
Adv. Of landfill in city
Keep curb system
5. Selling of Landfill Space
Should we sell 100m c.yds?
Leverage revenue generation to increase recycling education/participation
Evaluate regulation plans
Impact of non-city trucks (un-covered)
Check Certification of 250 acres
Methane gas issue
6. Port Channe Deepening&Widening
County has not officially committed.
Any money raised (need $4.8mm) -Navigation Distribution to corporation
Letters to plants/industry for support now
Competitive need
Pt. Arthur may not participate
Regional approach?
Why the need?
Port contribution a fair share? Same day base as city
Interested...Others answers industry support.
7. Transit System
Raise fixed fares?
Raise monthly pass fares?
Raise STS fares?
Reduce services?
If need increase, consider modest approach
Tier level of increases
Can set out certain after hours routes from FTA
Regional services (Pt. Arthur- Bmt.)
Airport Exchange option
Lt. rail?
Need to evaluate options - After Holidays!
Commute to outside areas may be restricted.
8. Relocate Rail Interchange
Consider purchase
Evaluate Grants
Good Idea determine cost
More information on grant possibilities
Overpass evaluations/costs- Franklin
9. EMS
1
2
3
4 -No
Leave it as is - Evaluate cost savings, billings, etc.
Evaluate success of current initiatives
10. County Wide Public Health
Not ready yet
Fire Station Fees - Evaluate
Light rescue
Heavy rescue
Standby fee
Excess False Alarm
Hazmat Response
Oflline Fire System
Fee to Insurance companies
Success on Collections
11. Election Date - May--November
Look at this to increase voter participation
12. Skateboard Park
Research Feasibility -Need exists
120 x 120 $150M
Wood, Concrete
Park sites- Lowest cost option
Downtown
Private - Lease
Partnership in Governance Meeting
Texas Energy Museum
10/19/99
NAME ORGANIZATION/TITLE
[ � v "+C G Y1u.,— /��.,..✓+-cam. Lk.��,.'
l C vt t� 1'Ce1i v C-YrY Z3 • 1/- CK 5,
Cl r7
sCJV%-
2&4 Z4
� -i,-I-� car,
X�l ':�1: C1i' �� 1. f,LASz_�
Signature Roster - Page 1
Partnership in Governance Meeting
Texas Energy Museum
10/19/99
NAME ORGANIZATION/TITLE
/
OW (60-kl (t0-/
UfIN L ' -
/ lF 0&1 & n,t/
t
Signature Roster - Page 2