Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041398S CC Min CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998 COMMUNITY BmLDING 6104 AUDEN 6:45 P.M. J The City Council convened in Workshop Session in the Community Building (6104 Auden) on April 13, 1998 with the following members present: Mayor Fogler presiding, . Council Members Starich, Davis and Sparkman. The City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Acting Police Chief, Finance Director and Public Works Management Assistant were also present. Council Member Neal was absent. AGENDA REVIEW: The City Council reviewed the regular meeting agenda and discussed items under consideration with the Staff. JOINT WORKSHOP WITH. BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION: The City Council discussed goals .and objectives with members of the Building and Standards Commission Members of the Commission presented a workshop schedule to discuss various topics related to building standards. The City Council recessed the Workshop Session at 7:30 p.m. to convene in Regular Session. The Workshop Session reconvened at 8:05 p.m. mSTORICAL SOCIETY: The City Council considered a request from members of the West. University Place Historical Society to assist the city with the 1999 celebration of the 75th anniversary of the city's incorporation. Members of the Historical Society present at the meeting were President June . Begeman, Whitt Johnson, Larry Massey and Elaine Allen. The City Council asked the City Staff to coordinate the celebration. 1998 BOND ISSUE: The City Council considered the. issuance of $7,835,000 in Public Improvement Bonds, $5,500,000 in Refunding Bonds and $1,415,000 in Water Revenue Bonds. -.1;1 11 ,'/;"111 I;. _llIltlli'1 11'1 1II1I1'I:nl <;,-diJlIi;i;lm.... . -.,'f'lIflmlllffmaJ1"~-~-._--------'~-~,.-~--- The City's financial advisor, Jim Shaw with Dain Rauscher, Inc. reported thatin 1995 the voters approved issuing bonds. totaling $63 million for the reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. In 1996 the City issued $13,540,000 to fund construction in priority areas 4B, 5A, 5B and 6A. The City did not anticipated selling bonds again until 1999. The recent surge in the national' economy, however, has driven interest nltes down to levels not seen since the late 1970's. While it is impossible to predict interest rates, a further decline appears to be less likely.thana gradual rise. In order to take advantage of this situation, the City's financial advisors. are recommending refunding a portion of the City's outstanding bonds as well as issuing new bonds to fmance improvements in Priority Areas 6B and 7 A. Since the bond issuance cost does not increase in direct proportion to the amount of bonds issued, issuing additional bonds to fund Infrastructure Replacement Projects at the same time will save costs. If authorized, this bond issuance process will be different from the past issues because it would be a negotiated issue. In the past, the City issued its bonds to the lowest bidder. Refunding outstanding bonds interjects too many variables into the bidding procedure to allow for an effective evaluation. The common approach to issuing refunding bonds is to negotiate with interested underwriters. The City's financial advisor will handle the negotiation and provide Council a comparison of the negotiated rate with rates resulting from open market bids. Both the refunding bonds and the 1998 bonds would be issued through a negotiated process. The proposed bonds and increase in debt service will cause the property tax rate to increase. between two and three cents in 1999, which is still within. the original projections prepared in 1995. The City Council requested that they have an opportunity to study the material relating to the bond issue and asked the staff to place this item on a later agenda. CONSULTING PLANNER SLIDE PRESENTATION: The City's Consulting Planner presented a slide show to the City Council. SPECIAL COLLECTION PROGRAM REPORT: The City' Staff presented a report on the special collection program in affect since March 14, 1998. City Manager Sherman Yehl reported that the City recently began a program to provide special collections for residents that placed their garbage out onthe curb before 6:00 PM the day before their scheduled pick-up day. Since the start of the program on March 14, 1998, there have been a total of 67 special collection fees warranted, with relatively few requests for waivers. 2 "-:1 ......_-LL... --'~~-~ ~.'.' , -....I~Irllr.T1I1llfT~-_._._---~-,-.--,-.----,-,-'~-~T,.---.-'-r-='.-""."'" Requests for waivers from residents mostly claim that the City missed their trash on the regular collection day or that they were .out of town and therefore could not have. put trash out on the curb. The fees are waived for these types of requests and a detailed record of waivers is kept in an effort to minimize repeat requests. As of the last report, there were no repeat fees issued to the same address, which seems to suggests that citizens are not opting to use the special collection program as a service. Also, with very few exceptions, residents are generally not making complaints about violators. Some elderly residents have expressed concern about the new ordinance. Senior Services offers assistance to elderly residents who are not able to get their trash out at the appropriate times.and the staffwill continue to coordinate efforts. Since the start of the program, $882 has been billed for this service. To date, direct program costs to the City are approximately $650. This cost is associated with paying two employees overtime to work the weekends. The average number of charges issued per week (Saturday-Friday) is 22.3. The average number of bags collected at each residence is two, with an average of $17 charged per household. Mr. Yehl stated that the staff recommends the continuation of this program in order to ensure compliance with the ordinance. If use of the service continues to decrease, the city may be able to reduce staffing and costs of the service. The initial evaluation is.thatthe program has been effective in reducing the amount of waste left out too early and reducing the number of complaints about the problem. DOG ORDINANCE: The City Council discussed amendments to the Dog Ordinance. Acting Police Chief Gary Brye reported that during the modification of the Noise Ordinance, the Animal Ordinance was also modified in order to group all noises into one category and to stipulate quiet hours'when these noises would not be permitted. This modification permitted a dog to bark' outside of the quiet hours with no recourse. or remedies available to neighbors who are being disturbed~ This was not an intended effect of the ordinance. In order to balance the conflict in protecting the peace and quiet of the neighborhood with the realization that dogs will and do bark, the staff developed the' following recommendations: 1. Include adefmition of Continuous Barking, i.e., barking occurring for thirty minutes or more. This identifies and quantifies a time frame that would be determined as unacceptable, while' at the same tirneallows a dog to bark at other animals, the mail 3 ~ -':1 L. ...1J1L "'-n___;.n:::JrnL1 h III I I.I..ftlll1JII <-'--I;HM:IIIlIMIlllll--=-: ~"'"1:rnJlTIft11:TmITJf~c----,.".'.'_~nc.m- . carrier, or burglars, for a reasonable time period without being found in violation of the ordinance. 2. Include an exception or affirmative defense to continuous barking if the barking was for cause. For example, a meter reader in the backyards or neighborhood kids playing in the yard. 3. Stipulate in the ordiilllllce that a dog barking continuously without cause that is . plainly audible within any .. dwelling unit located. on another premise, at any time of the day or night, is prohibited. 4. Provide a criminal penalty,.Class C Misdemeanor punishable by a fmeof $1 to $500, for a violation of this ordinance and/or utilize a mediation program based on the request of the citizen filing a complaint using the following criteria. Authorize the Animal Control Officer to investigate barking dog complaints and/or chronic -barking. complaints and attempt to mediate between'the person owning or harboring the dog and the resident being disturbed. The Animal Control Officer would determine if the 30-minute requirement was violated and make stipulation(s) to the dog owner and agree upon the steps that could be taken to prevent the dog from disturbing the neighbors. Include in the ordinance that a violation of these stipulation(s)is also in violation of the ordinance and punishable as a Class C Misdemeanor. Provide a means, through the BSC, where the owner could appeal the Animal' Control Officer's stipulations. The City Council asked that. the thirty minutes for continuous barking be changed to fifteen minutes. An ordinance will be prepared for consideration at the next regular session. INQUIRIES. REQUESTS AND COMPLAINTS: The City Council reviewed matters received from the public and referred them to the appropriate department or agreed to. place them on a future agenda for consideration or action. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT: The City Council considered a cost of living adjustment for a specific member of the Staff (City Secretary.) 4 .",_ ___L.__,-"Iu _ __,"_ L.'_-"'-U:-:-:t &.c [1',0 !.,.!llLlliJJl ""'~'-I...'-IIU--=.; . ''''f'mJ'fJTI'1ffflIlIfff'~-------~'-'-~'-~''-~'-o---'--- Closed Executive Session to be held under Section551.074, Texas Government Code. The Executive Session convened at 10:10 p.m. The City Council adjourned the Executive Session at 10:22 p.m. and reconvened in open seSSIOn. A motion was made by Council Member Sparkman, seconded by Council Member Davis, to increase the salary oftheCity Secretary in the amount of3.S% effective April 6, 1998. A vote was taken on the motion with the foUowing result: Voting Aye: Mayor Fogler, Council Members Starich, Davis and Sparkman None Council Member Neal Voting Nay: Absent: ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before City CounCil at this time, a motion was made by Council Member Sparkman, seconded by Council Member Davis, to adjourn. The workshop session adjourned at 10:24p.m. 5 ~rr:- ,~~","""""IIlII__ _m --~'--c"'---'r9~rllllrr'F."---.----------