Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to go ahead and get the meeting started at 9-11. We'll call the meeting to order. Second item on the agenda is approval of meeting minutes for July 14th. Those should have been placed in front of you for review. Okay. Once reviewed, if I could just get a motion in a second.

There is a small error on page two, paragraph two, the second to last sentence. Jeff discussed other cities' compensation structures, such as Abilene, which has a five-year contract that guarantees a 4% annual increase. That's not an accurate representation. Abilene is a five-year contract that they receive an average of their sister cities plus 4%. So their actual increase could be significantly higher than four, or it could be less than four, but it's an average plus 4%.

An average plus 4%.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, we will get that corrected.

I think with those changes, I'll make a motion to accept.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. We've got a first and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. And we'll bring the revised version to the next meeting. Okay, item three, update on subcommittee for physical fitness. Kelsey, you're welcome to do that. I think Kimberly also might be able to assist in that update, so y'all can take it away.

Good morning, all right, we met yesterday afternoon. We agreed to bring back the original proposal from Lieutenant Schultz. We discussed some clarifications on that proposal. Kelsey has a copy of that original proposal. Just a few clarifications of what PD staff are. We kind of agreed it would apply to all sworn personnel. We wanted some clarification on what the fitness star was and how the logistics were going to be worked through. Kelsey was going to work through those with Lieutenant Schultz. We discussed allowing staff to retest sooner than three months if they're ready and that staff who is on light duty would be exempt until they're released from light duty. We agreed that we wanted to utilize the language or similar language from Abilene's plan in that states no sworn employee subject to this agreement shall be disciplined, suspended, or subject to a fitness for duty evaluation or receive any other adverse employment action based solely on their participation in the fitness program.

Okay, and just for the record, that subcommittee consists of Kelsey, Kimberly, and Holly from the city attorney's office. Okay, is there a date? Did y'all talk about an additional subcommittee meeting? Okay. Obviously, having something finalized sometime prior to getting this agreement ready for approval and signature. So it would have to be within the month of August. So it's up to y'all. Just let us know. And I don't know if there's anything that y'all would like to add.

I think the only thing we have is just some clarification on some things from the last point. I know that there was talk about it being mandatory for the whole department. The position of the city is for it to be mandatory. So just as an example, just for clarification purposes, if somebody goes downstairs, because we only have four, and they get on the rower and they pull it once and sit there for two minutes, what would be the expectation of the city for that officer? I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if it were to happen.

We did kind of discuss this, and that was the reason we wanted to require the three-month re-row in there. So at least they have to come back every three months and redo it if they choose to give no effort. Other than that, there's not a whole lot we can do. I mean, I do think... From a management point, they can say, this is an assignment that you're requested to do. You have to at least try. But I don't know that we can totally avoid those situations. And Kelsey might be able to elaborate more.

Yeah. We also discussed about testing and how that would look like with manpower with the four rovers that we have. I needed clarification of who that testing was going to be and if it was going to be on duty or not. Yeah, but depending on manpower, too, I don't know how that would look like. If you have to retest every three months, that would be extremely difficult.

Would the requirement be to, it's required to retest in three months?

You would be required to retest if you don't meet the minimum standards every three months. And the minimum standards is equivalent to what they were required to do to get on the force. And so that's only the 30 percentile at the 2,000 meters. We did agree that it would be on duty time. It was just working through the logistics of that.

Okay. The second follow-up question I have is the heart attack bill that was put into effect a couple of sessions ago, 607.056, the local government code, covers presumption for police officers and heart attack events, of course, at work and then eight hours after the shift is over because we know that stress contributes to cardiovascular problems. Would Would stress testing, cardiovascular testing attaching to this, because it's mandatory, be something the city would look at from a medical standpoint? If we had, if any, if an officer participates in the testing, that they also get cardiovascular testing on top of this participation. Because looking through this in the lens of how this benefits the member or the officer, make it mandatory is one thing. Yeah. Is that still something that the city could attach or we could work with or work on? Sure.

Yeah, I don't think it's out of the question. I'd have to re-familiarize myself with that House bill or Senate bill. I'm not sure which it is, to tell you the truth. I mean, I imagine the mandates in any bill, if it applies to the police department, are regardless of there being a physical fitness program. So I'd have to re-familiarize myself with what parts of that, I guess. If you're asking... If there is specific testing that we would implement because there's a physical fitness, we could take a look at that. If you're asking if there's some sort of coverage, if there's a cardiovascular event because of the physical fitness, then yes, at that point, because this was done during the shift, it'd be covered under workers' comp, so.

Right. That is a new request. So I haven't looked into the cost of those testings for cardiovascular. We would have to look into that and see what it entails. And then again, we'd have to work through the logistics of having officers go through and do that testing while on duty. So we're going to be adding more time that you're pulled away from shift.

What bill did you say that was?

It's in the local government code. It's 607.056. It was passed to the governor's sign, so it's in the law. And again, the presumption is that if an officer dies on duty, obviously it's an on-duty risk, but it also covers eight hours after they get off shift. Yes. But my question is, if we go through mandatory physical fitness testing, an evaluation of cardiovascular health, I feel like we should be able to attach to it. And I'm looking again through the lens of like the Wade Cannon Act for firefighters. They get cancer screenings and all those things attached to it. We don't have that, but we do have the presumption bill. And I guess the follow-up to that follow-up would be if the fire department gets that, does the city pay for those screenings?

That is correct. The city pays for those screenings.

So, and that's why I don't think it's an unreasonable request to have cardiovascular testing or the physical for heart testing, stress testing, in addition to the mandated physical fitness. So, and that's just kind of, I wanted to bring that out. Maybe we can discuss that.

Yeah, not a problem.

Do you think that would help officer willingness to participate if they knew they had a screening and something like that with the test, the road test?

It may add to it, and I only say that because we do have certain officers who have medical conditions, and so I think, yeah, it would be a definite benefit.

Yeah, I think one of the purposes of the city wanting to implement a physical fitness test is to require... to be working out, which will then improve their cardiovascular health. And so hopefully they work together and coincide to create a healthier force.

So then the requirement of working out, is that going to be something that is going to be, is time going to be provided on duty to work out then?

The time for the testing would be provided. I'm not sure how y'all's schedule works to provide workout time already, but there's no requested change as far as I'm aware to that.

As far as the actual test itself, is it just the 2,000 meter row or is it the 500 meter row or is it the two minute row as many meters as you can? Because all three of those are

The proposal from last year included a 2,000-meter and a 500-meter two-minute row. And the incentives were tied strictly to the 2,000-meter.

Okay. Has anybody talked to A.C. Thomason about... Because he's created a whole... he created a policy which aligns with a lot of the stuff, but, um, I mean, whether, whether it's the administration versus the city itself, I'm not sure, uh, where the decision, you know, on, on y'all's end comes in with that, whether it's, Well, the administration wants X, which is less than what I'm hearing the city wants.

This is the plan that was presented by Lieutenant Schultz and supported by the administration last year. If their wishes have changed, I'm not aware of that. Okay. So I don't mind taking this to them and running it past them. Like I said, subcommittee was yesterday afternoon, so we haven't had a lot of time to do our follow-ups. All right.

Thank you.

Would you like a caucus? No, that's okay. We don't mind, but you can caucus if you'd like.

Yeah, can we get a brief caucus, please?

So we'll call a caucus at 928. Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order at 954. Is there anything that y'all wanted to share, I guess? Yes.

I think our response on that is that A.C. Thomason had come up with a revised plan this year that we had seen, and we were a lot more amenable to it, and that was just something. You may talk to him before our next meeting as far as... Would you all be okay if he attends the subcommittee meeting?

Sure. Since they're working on that? Okay. Okay, he'll be included in the next one then.

All right.

Moving on then to agenda item four, discussion and possible action on items to be considered for the 2027 meet and confer agreement. If you all don't mind, we'll start with an update on the budget end of things.

so we had our budget workshop this past tuesday or yes this past tuesday one of the items that we brought up in the budget workshop was a new right-of-way infrastructure fee previously we called it the street use fee that was a fee that we're hoping if is implemented could help fund some version of the meet and confer agreement with the comp and class that we talked about we didn't get clear direction on that so we're still waiting for additional direction from council. So we'll be taking that back to them at the next budget workshop. And so we'll have a better idea of what our funding levels will be at that point and kind of what we can do.

Yeah, I think the only other thing that I would add is that we walked away from that meeting feeling good about it. But I guess the specifics that Jonathan probably needs for the purpose of knowing what that funding looks like were not given at that meeting. I would imagine that he'll get clear direction at the next meeting just because they have to prepare the budget for approval after that. So anything you need to add? Any questions or comments on that?

When is the next budget workshop?

September 18th.

September 18th. August 18th.

I'm sorry, August 18th. Yeah, next Tuesday. No. No.

Two Tuesdays.

Two weeks.

Yeah, watching it, it seemed like there was a significant interest in it. It seemed from the spectator's view of it just boils down to which one they go with. Either way, I think it's the same amount of money that would be replaced out of the general fund, which seemed like... more money than we've seen in marginal revenue, at least in my career. Which, to me, there's a very slim likelihood of seeing something like that ever again. And so being able to get us, as well as the rest of the city, to market average, that's Kind of your one shot to get everybody to market. Otherwise, you're going to be playing catch-up, trying to get 6% and 8% when everybody else is getting 3% and 4% to make that leap. I know that we had talked last time about a CCPD. That would be the only other... theoretical source to, to make up a funding amount that, that large for meet and confer or something like that. But, um, it seems like to me, that's, that's kind of our shot to get to market or as close as we're going to get. Um, because wouldn't, I know you had presented a 2% COLA as part of a theoretical, and we're seeing 4% to 6% increase in police salaries at the benchmarks and generally just across the board every year. And so a 2% COLA leaves you 2% to 4% behind. So that's just kind of where we're at.

Yep. We feel good about it, so write your congressman. I don't know. Hopefully things will happen at the next meeting. in addition to that I guess related to the class and comp I did meet with the consultant in terms of your concern or y'all's concern about a multi-year implementation plan and what that does to make sure we keep up with the market and he did recommend that some sort of COLA in addition to those steps be added every year. So anyway, he mentioned anywhere between two to 3% COLA. So that's, I've communicated that to budget and they understand that that needs to be part of that implementation plan if the funding's available for it, so.

Did he do that based on historical data of public safety or historical data of like city, cities in general COLA?

I would imagine cities in general, COLAs. He didn't take time to analyze those things, but obviously if we implement a multi-year plan, then we'll make sure he does that so that those COLAs are adequate. And I think it also is going to depend on what happens in the market that particular year. We don't anticipate paying for another study for at least another five years or so would be my recommendation. So that's probably something that's going to be on our staff to do.

Yeah, and I think our – in my brain, the idea is – to get as close to market as possible in year one because of the funding source that appears to be there or anticipating because obviously if they say, no, we're not doing the right-of-way infrastructure fee, then there's no money. But with that, it would make the most sense to get as close to 100% year one, and then from that point, My suggestion would be for a committee to meet in like April of every year and have the data from the benchmarks because that's not too hard to get. Most of them put it on their website and you can get a confirmation real quick, but that way you're just looking at whatever everybody else gets as a moving forward type instead of continually trying to catch up over the three years.

Understood. Anything else to add to the compensation piece? Okay. Any other questions?

I have one. So the workshop is on the 18th. Is that right? Yes. Will that be a decision meeting for council or does council have another meeting to vote on?

Yeah, we're mainly looking for direction from council of what they would like to see. A decision on actual budget and funding will happen in September. We'll have a first reading of the ordinances for the tax rate and budget on the September 1st meeting, and then it'll be adopted on the 15th at the second meeting in September.

So for you, in order to be able to do the first meeting in September, you pretty much need to know what they're wanting at this next meeting.

Correct, yeah. So we really need solid direction from council at this next meeting in order to do that. So we'll have a real good picture hopefully after this one.

Because our...

If I remember correctly, our contract expires September 30th, so we're right on that crunch time to get something either agreed to or planned out or... Yeah, I looked at the calendar after this last meeting, and if he gets direction on the 18th, we would have something... we would have to have something ready to go by the end of August so that you all could review it, take it to your membership. It has to go before council. The agreement has to go before council as well. So we would hope that that could be done at the first or second meeting in September as well. There's hope.

Does that take two readings or just one?

I think it just takes one reading.

Okay. So it sounds like we need to plan on having a meeting later in the week of the 18th? Yes. So that we can, because that next week we would need time to have the membership vote on it.

Mm-hmm.

Do you have anything? You're good? Okay. And we'll talk about meeting dates here in a little bit. Meeting without Tina, I guess. So... Two other items related to this agenda item, out-of-state compensation. Blue, you sent me the proposed language. We looked it over, Brandon looked it over, and we do have some revisions that we'd like to request, so I'm gonna get those to you so y'all can look over them, and then we can have that discussion. I don't know how you want us to proceed with this. I'd like for the record to read the original, what was submitted, and then our recommendation at some point. And then we can have that discussion. But if you all need a caucus beforehand, that's fine. Or if we want to read through it, and then if you need a caucus, that's fine as well.

Yeah, I would like to request a brief caucus because I think we need to go over some changes too as well.

Okay, not a problem. We will call a caucus at 10.08. Okay, we will call the meeting back to order at 10.30.

We wanted to discuss a couple things on our side as well for... I guess re-talking what we had originally submitted, I'm going to let Kelsey go a little more in depth on the changes we had, too, since she handled most of the, or all of the recruiting and things.

So for starters, definitely removing applicant and using employee, because at that point in the process, they would already receive a conditional offer, so they would pretty much be considered an employee and not an applicant at that point, so we can make that change. And then removing the certificate levels of advanced and masters, meaning that it could only be approved up to an intermediate license.

Okay, what section are you on for that?

The second paragraph, where it says does not assign basic, intermediate, advanced, or master proficiency. So removing advanced and master.

So because Tickle does not assign.

I think it would be, I think that paragraph's fine. I think it would just be down.

So it would be under number four, add the phrase, so the President of San Diego has likewise produced a recommendation regarding the appropriate, I'm sorry, not that word, where the chief would

I guess 3.4 regarding the appropriate proficiency certificate level.

Yeah, up to intermediate.

I'm a little lost. Hold on a sec. Is it item three or four?

I think it's actually under five.

Section five?

After reviewing and considering the recommendations, the chief may determine the applicant's proficiency certificate level up to intermediate and approve compensation. Okay.

up to intermediate?

Yes.

Let me type that and then I'll read it so that I make sure I'm understanding. So your recommendation is for it to read, and I'm gonna start from the beginning of that section five. After reviewing and considering the recommendations of the training division and president of the San Angelo Police Officers Coalition, and in consultation with the city manager or his designee, the chief of police may determine the applicant's proficiency certificate level up to intermediate and approve compensation. Can you explain, I guess, why only up to intermediate?

Mainly that would be because whoever applied at that point, he could technically say everybody needs a master's certificate versus someone who's been with the city for that amount of time getting the same equivalent license would not really be fair to those who have been loyal to the department at that point.

Okay. And what would happen, I guess, if they were ever to go beyond that intermediate certificate? How would they go? How would an out-of-state, I guess, employee go?

It would be based on when they get to their TCO.

So they would have to have years for service to then obtain that license. So when somebody comes in from out-of-state... They have to, and we had a little bit of this discussion as well, just to make sure, but I guess, you know, let us know if we're wrong. They have to pretty much start over. So they come in, they do have to get some sort of certificate to be on the force, and then they have to start working on certificates after that. That's correct? Correct. And so the wording in Section 5 would mean that between the chief and the city manager THEY COULD REVIEW TRAININGS AND THINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND A RECOMMENDATION SUBMITTED BY THE TRAINING DIVISION, ALLOWING THEM TO SET COMPENSATION UP TO THE INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATE. AND THEN ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, THEY HAVE TO DO THROUGH THE T-CALL PROCESS.

Yeah, and I think if you look at big picture, there's not really a whole lot of reciprocity with Texas law enforcement compared to the rest of the nation. So just a Kentucky police officer comes here, that's going to be a separate evaluation from a California or New Mexico, for instance. So I think starting with the intermediate level licensing, I think that's the fairness of the process that we'd start there, and then it would be on them to continue licensing as an employee with our department moving on to advance themselves.

Okay. Do we need a caucus on that to understand that?

I guess I have a question. So since this is for pay only, they still, even if they have intermediate pay, they still have an entry-level certificate, right? So it's, okay, I think I'm understanding that. So it would take them quite a bit to get to master's, even if they're getting paid kind of mid-level.

Yes, ma'am, by the Texas standard.

It depends on the factors. I mean, if they have... four or five years of military service, they could do it rather quickly. If they have an advanced degree, they could do it rather quickly. But otherwise, it's going to take a while. But they're going to at least make compensation other than recruit pay based on their previous employment.

So the purpose of this is still to incentivize those out-of-state officers to come in at making something other than recruit pay, but then also keeping in mind current officers that have the certificate. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, and we also don't want to overlook the service that they may have had. You know, say we get a 10-year career homicide investigator that comes here. While they're not from Texas and done the Texas thing, how TECOL provides it, we still want to recognize that they've served, in some form or fashion, done good police work elsewhere. But we also don't want to just start assigning this proficiency when that's the only lens we look at it through.

Okay.

Do you have... Phil, we need a caucus on that. You're good?

You good with that?

Okay. Okay, anything else y'all had on this?

We're good with that.

Okay, we're good with that change. If there's no further discussion on that, then we'll, Holly, if y'all can prepare the TA for that. The TA for that one. And we can bring it at the next meeting. I think we've been approving those separately, unless we want to do it all at once.

Yeah, we've been approving them separately, I'm pretty sure.

Okay. Okay, great. The other item related to agenda item number four is the probationary period. I sent that proposed language over to you, Blue. I'm not sure if y'all are ready to discuss that, if you have any comments, recommendations.

Give me just a second.

Sure, no problem. It was sent over July 14th at 2.46 p.m. if you're looking through your email. It's a short paragraph. Y'all are welcome to discuss that in this meeting or bring it back up to you. I think if I remember correctly, the discussion that y'all were going to have wasn't so much about The language, but maybe the purpose. So I don't know if y'all have had any discussions on that.

I did. I got lost in my chain. Sorry. No worries. That's my bad. Can we continue a caucus on this, please?

Sure, no problem. We'll call a caucus at 1040. So sorry about that, Blue. I have my ringer turned off, and so I missed your text whenever you send them. I apologize.

That's okay.

My computer's not logging in.

We will call the meeting back to order at 1055.

I think our response on that is that the department gets a year for evaluation based on training and remedial training. Now, we would be open to... time that an employee misses work exceeding four consecutive weeks or four or more consecutive weeks for say they're in a car crash on or off duty and they can't show up to work for six weeks or six months, extending that or if they take extended FMLA time exceeding four weeks, those sorts of where they're gone from work. the city already gets essentially an additional six months from what civil service allows, because civil service requires 12 months from the start of hire. And we recognize that that extra time is needed, but that still gives a full year of actual evaluation. And if you can't figure out somebody... can or can't be an officer after a full year now, barring the time off situation. That's kind of our perspective.

So just for clarification, you're okay with allowing extended time if they're out of work for an extended period of time, but not necessarily for...

Yeah, not based on remedial training.

Okay. And so you all are comfortable with making employment decisions just based on the current amount of time that's allowed for that probationary period and assessment?

Yeah, so another department safeguard that's been recently put in place is if once an officer gets out of their field training, the supervisor they're assigned to also has to do a monthly evaluation after the completion of that. So the department safeguard is even though they've completed field training, a supervisor still has to provide a monthly evaluation until their probationary period's over. And so I mean, there's already, like I said, that layered safeguard in there. But as far as Lieutenant Kennedy's point for missed time where they're not on the job doing things, I think it's... And in all fairness, with the year that that officer has and we work 12-hour shifts, I mean, I think there's still plenty of time. And I don't want to create this... I don't want to bargain away something when it's an administrative choice anyway. Because we don't have, as an association, we don't have any ruling into when an officer should be a cop or how they should be a cop when it's an administrative decision.

And I won't necessarily have any comments on that. This is something that we're going to have to go back and talk about and then bring back at the next meeting.

Just for emphasis purposes, you know, civil service grants probationary period from a year from the date of hire, and we've already conceded to the date of swear-in. So we've already given administration, you know, could be six additional months to evaluate this officer for And now, based on the wording that was provided, it would essentially be indefinite. Because what's the definition of needing remedial training? Well, that's completely subjective to the person making that determination. And with no cap, whoever that person is could leave a new officer on probation indefinitely. And there's nothing that would ever make them a protected member of the San Angelo Police Department. So as Lieutenant Kennedy said, a year is more than enough time to evaluate for training purposes. But in those situations where there's something that prohibited them from being able to physically attend work, then it would be reasonable accommodation to grant more time for evaluation.

Okay. Anything from our side on that? Good. Okay. Those are the only things that I had laid out to discuss under agenda item number four. I don't know if you all had something additional. Okay. If we could go ahead and I guess go ahead and take a look at our calendars so we can schedule the next meeting. Okay. So the next council meeting that includes the budget workshop is, as we discussed, on August 18th. I forgot I'm on vacation until August 28th, starting the 19th, but someone can step in my place. I know we have to have a meeting hopefully the end of that week. Tina?

Friday is good.

Friday the 21st? What does that look like for y'all? Holly, I know you're stepping in for Brandon today because he's off on Fridays, but if he doesn't mind.

The only thing is I'm at a conference that Friday in Round Rock, so I don't know if Brandon would have to come in or how we would do that.

I normally got on Fridays, yeah. We will tentatively schedule it for Friday until I can make sure Brandon can attend since Holly won't be available. Jonathan, what does that look like for you? Sorry. You're good that day. Is there a, would there be a backup date if for some reason Brandon's not available? Maybe the 24th? The following Monday?

Is the 20th okay, in case the 21st can't work? If Brandon is, yeah, the day before?

I'll be at the conference, but Brandon.

Brandon is in office, yeah, on the 20th.

Yeah, I don't know his schedule that day, but he's usually here. Jonathan, Tina. I could do the ad for him.

the afternoon of the 20th? We can start the meeting at one. Does that work for you? Let me try a trick real quick and see if I can see Brandon's calendar. Yeah, it looks like he has nothing to do that day.

It's nothing at all.

Okay, so we will plan to do Thursday, August 20th at 1 p.m. We'll schedule 1 to 4. Okay. Okay. If nothing else, we will move on to agenda item number five, adjournment. If I could have a motion and a second.

I'll make a motion.

Motion. Second. Jonathan's trying. I'll second. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes. We adjourn at 11.03. Thank you very much.