Loading...
Min 08/29/1995 983 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building August 29, 1995 The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, met in special session on the above date in the Council Room of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 8:30 o'clock a.m. , with the following members present: Michael Lam - Mayor Don Johnston - Councilors Dan Shine - Angus Thompson - Bill Daniel - J. W. Martin - Harold Hawkins - James Berzina - City Manager Gregory Humbach - City Attorney Lydia Torres - City Clerk Mayor Lam called the meeting to order. Invocation was given by Rev. Angus Thompson, New Jerusalem Baptist Church. RESOLUTION NO. 144-95 A proposed resolution was presented accepting low bid and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract for construction of a shelter at the Nature Works Site. Moved by Councilor Shine that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mr. Murphy reported that bids were opened and they were too high for their budget and they have instructed the architect to work with the apparent low bidder to see if a price can be negotiated. He recommended that this item be tabled until next Council meeting. He said that bids are good for thirty days. Moved by Councilor Martin that proposed resolution be tabled until next Council meeting. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None A public hearing was held on the City' s tax rate for fiscal year 1995-1996. City Manager briefed Council on options regarding the tax rate. The present City tax rate is 67. 2 cents. The preliminary budget was submitted to the Council with an actual decrease to 66. 6 or 66.7 cents. The total assessed value left us, even with the lower rate submitted, with a gain of 2 . 9% in revenues, which kept us under 30. After the fire initiative passed and after discussion by the Council, we had to avail ourselves to another process where we would conduct a public hearing if we go over 984 the 3% total gain of the City' s effective tax rate. We published in the paper a rate of 68 .980 cents which is a gain of 6. 6% revenue increase over from the current year. That is higher than the current rate and higher than the proposed rate, but it leaves Council total consideration whether it wants to set the rate at that figure or anything below. Mayor declared the public hearing open and asked for any comments on the tax rate. Mayor allowed time for comments and no one wished to be heard. Mayor declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NO. 84-95 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 12, COURT (MUNICIPAL) OF RECORD, OF THE WICHITA FALLS CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF A SECURITY FEE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS DISCUSSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Shine that Ordinance No. 84-95 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Hawkins. Councilor Martin asked if our revenue from fines had greatly increased. Mrs. Bourgoin commented that they have increased but it is strictly based on the number of tickets being issued, and because of the action of the Collection Agency. The Collection Agency has collected around $100,000 in three months. Councilor Martin asked if it would not make it more difficult to collect these fines if they were increased more. Mrs. Bourgoin replied that she did not think it would. This particular fund that is being set up would be strictly for security measures. It will not make anything more difficult, and it would be effective with tickets issued on or after the effective date, so prior ones would not be affected. Councilor Martin asked what security problems we have had over there. Mrs. Bourgoin replied that right now they have the minimum security as far as the building. I am concerned with the new concealed handgun law and the increase in gang activity here in Wichita Falls. We are seeing more gang members in the Court for different violations. Because of changing times, it is a necessity at which we are going to need to look. Councilor Martin asked if we have had any security problems in the Court. Mrs. Bourgoin said that they had, but a police officer was in the building and handled the situation. There were several ., occasions we did have to call dispatch when an officer was not in the building. Mayor commented that this would apply only to those persons who brought their cases to Court. Mrs. Bourgoin said the Court Security Fund would not apply to the parking violations. That is strictly Judge' s decision. Those people do not even come into Court. Mrs. Bourgoin said this fee would apply to everything except parking violations. Councilor Hawkins stated that is one of the things we need to be looking at in the budget today. We do have an officer over there when Court is in session and we do have to pay them. Why should citizens who obey the law have to pay for an officer to protect our Judge and our staff. Why don' t we have the people who brake the law pay for it. I think I am going to support this because in the near future we are going to have to install 985 metal detectors in all our buildings. We are going to that type of society. I think we are going to have to start meeting funding to cover that. Councilor Martin said that he felt the fee should not apply to persons sending in their payment for speeding tickets but only to those persons who have to go before the Judge. That is where the cost comes in. Councilor Shine asked if that law makes security mandatory. Mrs. Bourgoin replied that she was referring to the concealed handgun law which goes into effect in January, 1996. Court security measures come under the Police Department' s accreditation process and this is where we are vulnerable at this point and time because we are not up to those requirements. Councilor Shine asked if we need to go to a different security level and this will help pay for it. Mrs. Bourgoin said that was correct and the governing body of the municipality would have control of the funds and how they are dispersed. Councilor Martin said he would like to see that those who mail in their payments and do not utilize the Court system to be exempt from this fee. Councilor Hawkins asked if Council had the option to determine which tickets are assessed the $3 fee, since part of this money goes to Austin. Mrs. Bourgoin replied that none of the $3 amount goes to Austin. City Attorney commented that the $3 fee was for persons convicted in a trial for a misdemeanor offense in Municipal Court. Our interpretation would be if you go in and pay that ticket you have not had a trial and the fee should not apply. Mrs. Bourgoin said that there had been quite a bit of discussion in the Texas Municipal Court Legislative Update as what constitutes a trial, and their interpretation was any time there is a judgement rendered. There is room for interpretation there. The $3 fee would be applied on any ticket issued on or after the effective date of the ordinance. It can be done considering the mail versus the ones that come in to the Court You will be dealing with some administrative policies, but it can be worked out. It would be strictly your decision how it is applied. Councilor Hawkins stated that if you pay the ticket it is a certain number of dollars. If you go to Court it is $3 plus the ticket. He said he would support applying the fee only to those who use the Court system and are convicted. Mrs. Bourgoin asked if they were considering a trial an actual trial or an administrative hearing. Councilor Johnston stated that the purpose of this fine is to provide security to those persons coming into the Courtroom, whether they appear to pay the fine or to contest the fine. Persons who are convicted should pay the fee and those persons who are innocent ought not to pay it. If a person mails in a payment and does not come in to Court, they should not have to pay the fee. That should be the criteria. Mayor commented that could be an incentive for persons to pay fines. Councilor Hawkins asked if the Judge has the authority to waive this fee or reduce it. City Attorney stated that the Judge has the discretion on what the fine is going to be set at depending on the circumstances. However he does not have the authority to reduce or waive the $3 fee which would be set by ordinance. However, he has many options to give individuals pay out for fines over long periods of time. There are a lot of ways of accommodating these people. Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 84-95 be modified by reflecting that security fee will apply only to those fines collected in the premises of the Municipal Court building. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. 986 Ayes: Mayor Lam, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None It was clarified that persons going to the Municipal Court Building to pay their fines would be assessed the $3 fee, but not if payment was mailed. A discussion was held on the Proposed Annual City Budget. City Manager informed that the last budget session was left with several items still up for discussion. One was the tax rate and the other was the pay plans. The preliminary budget included a 4% across the board pay increase for employees. There were different suggestions as what to do with those funds or any portion of those funds. The two approaches worked up by Staff are to take the 4% and use to divide it this way for a 2% across the board and 2% to address positions which are most out of line. The second approach is to use the 3% across the Board and apply 1% out of the 4% to positions most out of line. Council discussed the positions most out of line and the difficult positions to hire. Today we have three different avenues which we have explored in terms of cost figures and impact it would have on the City work force and which positions would be affected and some different methodology about dividing the money. Mrs. Stricklin will highlight this for you. Mrs. Stricklin passed out some handouts. She said the first alternative is to address the positions that are 15% or more under the average of comparable positions and all positions that are difficult to hire and retain and also the Police Department and all of those positions. It brings a 3% cost of living to 606 non civil service employees and on top of that an additional 2 1/2% adjustment to 245 non civil service employees (hard to hire would get an additional 2 1/2% plus all 15% or under would receive that 2 1/2%) , and 180 police would receive an additional 2 1/2%. 3% across for all employees and 2 1/2% additional for non civil service (hard to hire or really behind positions) , and 2 1/2% for police. This can be done with the amount of funding of the 4%. Councilor Daniel asked if the 3% was applicable only to non civil service employees. Mrs. Stricklin replied that was correct, but the 3% would be for everyone, but those non civil service would not receive any adjustments. 606 employees would only get 3%. 5 1/2% for police, hard to hire, and 15% under the average would be on top of that. Next, she went over the fire fighters monthly based salary under the referendum which goes into effect September 1. If we adjust the police across the board 3 1/2% plus 2 1/2% adjustment then their monthly salary would be what you see. She stated that in the salary survey a number of the police positions which were 11% 15% and 17% behind, this would give all police officers this increase to prevent going in and just adjusting those 11%, 15% and 17% which eschews the whole system in the department as far as differential in the ranks. This would take care of all this. Mrs. Stricklin continued explaining the handouts. The last document is similar in that it affects all of the same employees. The difference between the first and second document is you can give a 3% across the board plus 2 1/2% adjustments. In the last document you can give 2% across the board but give 4% adjustments. Those more out of line will get the largest adjustment, but the majority of the employees would receive much less. In my opinion from employees all can accept that there are adjustments but if you adjust too heavily in one direction it makes it somewhat inequitable in their eyes. Councilor Johnston said he understood that in the comparison of the two, in one case the people we have 987 highlighted that need the most adjustment will receive 5 1/2% where most employees will receive 3%. In the second case, the people we have highlighted that need the most adjustment will receive 6% but most employees will receive a 2%. Councilor Shine asked if the police training will remain the same. Mrs. Stricklin replied that it would. The other reason is that I am not having difficulty in getting recruits, but retaining is another situation. That is the other purpose for the police increase. Council commended Mrs. Stricklin for the work she had done on this. Councilor Hawkins reported that the Capital Improvement Committee looked at funding infrastructure repairs and needs of the City, and came up with a total capital outlay of $4,524, 529 which is 23% of the General Fund budget. We are funding that much already. If we add one cent we add a very small amount to the actual funding needs of the City. We feel it would be better for us to go back and look at the possibility of identifying the needs of the City and going to a bond issue to cover the infrastructure repairs and everything that needs to be done, instead of putting it on the ad valorem taxes. Mayor summarized that salary adjustments, whether 2% or 3%, however we adjust it, still take up this amount of money for the 4%. We are not spending anymore money above that. We are adding the increase for the fire fighters under the referendum. City Manager explained that in order to do that you need to leave all the figures, at least the budget figures as submitted. Then in order to accomplish that you will need to go from 67. 2 cents to 67. 6 cents on the tax rate. It is about 4/10 of a cent increase, but it is less than what you advertised to take up the capital expenditures. Mayor said everything else in the budget stays the same. City Manager said it does in dollars. City Manager explained that if the Council agrees with the capital improvement committee' s recommendation to fund five or six projects with prior year' s revenue, we will need to add that to this document which is paid from your prior year' s funds. This document would be increased by $3 ,000,000. City Manager asked for Council direction on this recommendation and on the tax rate. If you agree that you do not want to take the tax rate to 68 cents, then we can move it to 67. 6 cents or 67. 2 cents. Staff recommends 67. 6. We can prepare this budget for either tax rate prior to the September 5 Council meeting. Councilor Shine said he would like the tax rate to remain the same at 67. 215, and to find the nominal amount of money ($114,000) needed. If there are going to be any cuts, he would like to know what is cut. Mayor directed City Manager to prepare that information for Council for the next meeting. He asked for a budget with the present rate of 67. 2 and one with the proposed rate 66 .6 ($114,000 vs. $270,000) , and what he would do in both scenarios. City Manager said the information requested is on keeping the rate at the proposed budget of 66.6 and cut $270, 000 out of this budget and fund the fire fighters without raising the rate. The legal present rate is 67. 2 and City Manager is also to present information on that rate. Councilor Hawkins recommended that total capital expenditures at $3, 686,075 be included in the budget. This recommendation was also to be included. Councilor Daniel said at the last meeting he had proposed including $500,000 for capital improvements as a budget item every year. Several of us discussed that at length and I backed away from that idea. If we maintain the current tax rate at 67. 215 with increased revenues due to higher valuations we will continue to have some funds through the years. My concern is you cannot budget that way. My proposal today would be to maintain the 67.215, use that as a starting point and add to it enough to 988 cover the firemen' s raise voted on by the citizens, which would bring us to 67. 6. This would pay for the firemen' s raise and allow us a little for capital improvements in addition to the City Manager' s budget, which is 6/10 of a difference. City Manager clarified that his current proposed rate is 66. 6 prior to the fire fighter' s referendum. With the fire fighter' s raise under the referendum, the tax rate would be 67.6, keeping the figures the same. But this was not one of the options Council has asked me to bring back, options were at tax rates of 67. 2 or at 66. 6, which is a $270,000 cut. If I bring it back at 67. 215 which is current tax rate, the cut would be $114 , 000. City Manager stated that the fire fighters, prior to the election, told public that it would cost 2. 3 cents. Now we are saying it has to be done with 4/10 of a cent. That is because we are using the assessed value growth and they used the current assessed value times the rate to see how much revenue was coming in, and they were right in doing that. This budget was based on the $121 million assessed value growth so the rate produces more. This budget also included a 4% salary increase across the board which included the fire fighters. They were not wrong with what they said. But because of the two things that happened, the inclusion of the 4% and the growth of the City' s tax base, we only need 4/10 of a cent to fund this budget and to raise the rate from 67. 215 to 67.6 . Council Martin asked if the adjustment Mrs. Stricklin presented would include the 20 firemen' s salaries which were below in their proposal that was overlooked. Mrs. Stricklin replied it did not, that had already been agreed upon. Councilor Daniel stated that he proposed to keep the budget as presented and add enough to the tax rate to cover the difference in the firemen' s raise. City Manager said that would be the 67 . 6. Councilor Hawkins said we will be looking at three different tax rates which are 66. 608, 67. 215 and 67. 675. City Manager asked if Council wanted him to include the adjustment in the referendum for fire fighters B and C. Council ' s consensus was that should be included. The City Council adjourned at 9: 15 a.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this t � day of 1995. Michael Lam, MaTbr ATTEST: y a Torres C19 Clerk