Last night’s Shoreacres City Council meeting started off on a positive note. Shoreacres Police Officer Steve Ford was given a Life Saving Award for providing CPR to resident T.F. Gibson.
Citizen Comments
Scott Tuma – 1220 S. Country Club Drive – Mr. Tuma stated that because of the improved roads, the blind turn at S. Country Club and W. Country Club should have “Dangerous Curve” signs posted as well as lowering the speed limit on the turn to 10 MPH.
Christina Tuma – 1220 S. Country Club Drive – Mrs. Tuma stated that five streets in the city already have speed limits of 20 MPH per Ordinance 2012-124. She stated that there was one sign on S. Country Club that shows the speed limit to be 20 MPH but because it is not in the ordinance, the police cannot issue tickets based on 20 MPH. She wants the ordinance changed to include S. Country Club as a 20 MPH street, that more 20 MPH speed limit signs be installed, and that officers issue tickets.
Michael Schnell – 618 Baywood – Mr. Schnell wanted council to know that there was no conspiracy theory or vendetta from him or anyone in his family against former Police Chief’s French and Newman.
Dana Woodruff – 3534 Miramar Dr – Ms. Woodruff referenced Agenda Item 8.6, saying she was concerned about some “trending” over the past few months. She directed her remarks at Alderman Nancy Schnell, telling her to find something positive to do so that she can lift herself up without tearing others down. Ms. Woodruff objected to the request that the City Administrator be directed to do reports because of a personal vendetta. Ms. Woodruff said that she hasn’t seen any other cities that have been as successful at storm recovery after Ike.
Mike Clark – 413 Baywood – Mr. Clark wanted to know where the buck stops with the city. He mentioned issues with the two previous police chiefs, public works problems, water meters not being read, etc. He stated that at his job, if his employees weren’t consistently performing their duties someone would be responsible for that. He said that the city needs a clear vision, all the factionalism isn’t helping the city.
Vicki Ellis – 414 Baywood – Ms. Ellis addressed her comments to City Administrator Stall, telling him that she enjoyed working with him through the years. She also said there was a pattern of putting people on the agenda and humiliating them until they resigned.
Gerry Victor – 3346 Miramar – Mr. Victor had concerns about the water system and what will happen if we have a catastrophic failure of the elevated water tower.
Neil Moyer – 1118 N. Country Club – Mr. Moyer talked about two issues. First was installing speed bumps in reference to Mr. and Mrs. Tuma above. He recommended using ropes because they are temporary and can be put down and pulled up with ease. His second issue was also regarding 8.6 and suggested that it was a waste of taxpayer money to require the City Administrator to put together reports that individual council members could pull together on their own.
Charlotte Wells – 3342 Miramar – Ms. Wells applauded the work council did in trying to reduce the budget. She then said that a major cost to the city was the City Administrator and that for years we ran the city very well without one. She stated that she was a liberal but that we need to stay within our means on the budget and she appreciated 8.6 and that it wasn’t a “he said, she said” or an “us against them” as we are all one city.
Administrative Reports
City Administrator Stall – Byway water line is well underway and you can see the water pipe if you drive up Fairfield. This will be a major improvement in the distribution of water and additional fire hydrants. The auditors are scheduled to arrive in February. Job position for Chief of Police has been posted and 22 applications have been received thus far. City pot luck dinner will be on Dec. 5th. Street improvements round two are near completion – the recent rains pointed out a couple of problems with drains being too high. David Sutton met with the county engineer and plans are to lower those drains. W. Forest from Center to W. Country Club is now on the county’s list for rebuilding and that will complete all of the streets in the Country Club addition. Emergency dispatch service with La Porte was on their council agenda for the same night. Stall has provided notice to Lakeview that we will terminate their service on Dec. 30th. The city will send out notices so that citizens can update their alarm companies with the new La Porte dispatch information.
Interim Police Chief Massey – He didn’t go over the police report. He did talk more about Officer Ford and his response. Massey said he was the backup and watched Ford perform CPR for 12-15 minutes, then Officer Ford stayed with the family after the ambulance left. He noted that Officer Ford is a reserve officer making minimum wage.
Public Works Director Sutton – Water purchases dropped this month as anticipated to 6.5 million gallons vs September purchases of 6.1 million gallons (perhaps he misspoke?). No special projects this month. Water leaks went down, only four reported. During the next two months, staff will be training for various licenses. In response to a question from Mayor Webber, Sutton talked about a project to clear the right of way on all streets in the city, saying it was about 70{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} complete. In response to a question from citizen Gerry Victor, Sutton stated that he was unaware of any leaks from the elevated water tank. He stated that there was an inspection when he arrived and there were some structural issues but he didn’t remember what they were. His opinion is that the integrity of the elevated is fine and that it should last another 2 or 3 years. If the tank failed, he stated that water pressure would actually increase because they would be using booster pumps. The only reason we have the elevated tank is because we are required by law to have an elevated storage tank. In response to a question from me, he stated that he has been sending two people with the recycling trailer because the backend is broken and it is quicker to clean up spills on the street with two people. He also stated that he allows employees to use city vehicles to drive out of the city for lunch and breaks. Citizen Neil Moyer stated that now that Prop 6 has passed, we should find out if the state will fund improvements to our aging water system to save water from the various leaks.
Business
Agenda Item 8.2 – Approval of a contract for more street work. This one is Oakdale Avenue from Old Highway 146 to Byway Avenue and 719-feet of East Forest Avenue from Old Highway 146 towards Byway Avenue. It was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item 8.3 – This was an attempt by Alderman Moses to form a committee to select a police chief candidate to be presented to council for approval. His original proposal was to have the Mayor, City Administrator, one Alderman, and Interim Chief Massey. Citizen Dianne Victor suggested that a citizen be added to Moses’ proposal. Moses did not want a vote on the item yet but put it on the agenda so that council could think about it and then vote on it at the next meeting. Citizen Gerry Victor noted that the money for the Interim Chief’s position has run out and Mayor Webber informed him that Massey has continued on in the position at the old chief’s salary. Citizen Neil Moyer recommended having the City Administrator whittle the number of applicants down instead of allowing the committee to go through dozens of applicants. The committee could do the final vetting of the candidates. No action was taken.
Agenda Item 8.4 – This was an attempt by Alderman Schnell to clarify the city’s drug testing policy. City Administrator Stall had asked for this clarification at the last meeting. Unfortunately he was against the changes Schnell proposed and after a contentious discussion, the item was tabled before citizens had a chance to speak on the item.
Agenda Item 8.5 – This was an attempt to obtain update the ordinance requiring digital recordings of council meetings be placed online. Alderman Schnell noted that because of the placement of the recorder, one end of the table and citizens can not be heard clearly. After objections from Stall, the item was defeated 3-2, with Jones, Moses, and Wheeler against and Bunker and Schell for.
Agenda Item 8.6 – This was an attempt by Alderman Schnell to make the council and citizens aware that City Administrator Stall’s current salary is well above the average for cities the size of Shoreacres. Alderman Bunker made a motion to postpone the item indefinitely before discussion started and the motion was approved 4-1, with Schnell objecting.
Agenda Item 8.7 – Council cancelled the scheduled meeting for December 23, 2013.
Commentary
It has been interesting watching this council morph from running for election on a platform of change to one of supporting the current condition of the city. One of the most frustrating things is the inconsistency of the Mayor in his approach to citizen comments and then council shutting down citizen comments during agenda items. Had I known that Bunker was going to shut down discussion on Item 8.6, I would have done as others and addressed the item during citizen comments. Citizen Gerry Victor tried to discuss item 8.4 at the proper time but was shut down. The ordinance about the citizen comment period is very specific, as is the working on the agenda itself:
If you will note in the citizen comments above, it is clear that some citizens were allowed to comment on an item (8.6) that was on the agenda. For those of us that adhere to the policy, and then get shut down, it is extremely frustrating. This is not the first time this has happened under this Mayor/Council.
I think that Ms. Wells said it best – you can be liberal, conservative, or something in-between, but we must live within our means if we want to survive as a city. Making a villain of someone trying to raise awareness of the problems in the city isn’t the best way to fix them.
Thank you for the summary of these meetings! You have a great way of cutting thru the emotions and getting to the meat of the meeting.
Let me just address this one topic:
“This is the opportunity for citizens to comment on items which do not appear on the agenda. Time is limited to five minutes per speaker. Members of Council are prohibited by law from participating in the discussion or deliberation of items that are not specifically identified on this agenda.”
This phase first appeared on the agenda for the December 14th, 2009 meeting for reasons unknown. At best, this phrase is incomplete and misleading. This misleading phrase on our governing body’s meeting agenda is just another example of citizens receiving information that when researched, provides the perception of deception, whether intentional or not. Perception so often has a tendency to become reality.
Let me start with the easiest one first:
“Time is limited to five minutes per speaker.”
This statement is correct, however citizens may request additional time, if that request is made at the onset of the comment period and it is approved by city council.
“Members of Council are prohibited by law from participating in the discussion or deliberation of items that are not specifically identified on this agenda.”
While this is true, it gives the perception that members of council are prohibited from saying anything in regards to items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. That would be a misleading perception. Members of council are limited to responding to items that are not specifically identified on the agenda to 3 responses:
1. a statement of specific factual information given in response to the inquiry.
2. a recitation of existing policy in response to the inquiry.
3. Any deliberation of or decision about the subject of the inquiry shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on the agenda for a subsequent meeting.
And my favorite:
“This is the opportunity for citizens to comment on items which do not appear on the agenda.”
This statement is most misleading because it gives the perception that citizens may only comment on items which to not appear on the agenda. That perception is contrary to city code. Shoreacres city code addresses citizen comments in two different sections.
“Sec. 2-83. Rules of order and procedure for council meetings
(7) Public comments.
Time shall be reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the council. Each person shall be subject to the provisions of this article. Any item of interest not appearing on the agenda that is presented by a member of the public under “citizen’s comments” may be referred to the city clerk, mayor, or a member of council for investigation and placement on a future agenda if desired.”
“Sec. 2-69. Citizens’ presentation
An agenda item entitled “Citizens’ Presentation” shall be included as a part of all regular city council meetings. During this time, a citizen or member of the public may comment on any subject matter concerning the city, whether or not it is on the agenda. Petitions to the council may also be presented at this time. The council may establish rules of procedure to limit comment by any one person to a maximum amount of time of five minutes per meeting. Members of the public who wish to address the council for a period of time longer than five minutes shall notify the mayor or city secretary in advance of the meeting. The mayor may honor such requests at his discretion unless a majority of councilmembers present disagrees. The council may not vote upon any subject not previously posted on the agenda. However, upon public comment, the mayor or councilmembers may direct the city secretary, to place such an item on the agenda for the next regular meeting.”
“Citizen’s presentation” and “Public comments” are synonymous and have be used historically to describe that section of a meeting where citizens have the right to be heard. Sec.2-69 was passed in 1997, and Sec. 2-83 was passed in 2001, amended in 2012. Sec. 2-83 supersedes Sec. 2-69 concerning the 5 minute limit rule. Sec. 2.83(7.b) removes the mayor discretion and requires council approval for additional time. Other than that, the two statues do not conflict.
It is clear in our code that citizen may comment on any subject matter, whether or not it is on the agenda. The statement printed on the city agenda is very misleading and leads to a false perception that it is policy.
The mayor allows the citizens to speak about items on the agenda during the citizens’ comment, hopefully, because, as mayor, he is required by Texas law to do so.
“The mayor shall at all times actively ensure that the laws and ordinances of the municipality are properly carried out.”
Granted and according to code, the subject matter must be a subject matter germane to city business. One could not, for example, start talking about the 69 Mets, unless it is in the context of how this governing body, like the 69 Mets, can still recover and have a successful year.
Also, the mayor has the discretion to allow citizen comments during any discussion of agenda items under council consideration. Sec. 2.83(9) states:
“The mayor may allow public comment or testimony germane to the item of business under consideration by council.”
More on other topics later, but thanks for your column!
Yet again another great write up. Thank you, David for your investment of time as well as your interest in our fair city. Off and away.
Nancy Schnell