City Diverts $2.5 Million from Trash Contract Cash Bonanza to City Auditorium Renovations

 

Thanks to Solid Waste royalty funds received through a contract with Republic Services, City Council members agreed to allocate $2.5 million “discretionary” dollars for a newly renovated and expanded City Auditorium that members expect will be “the hub” of culture for San Angelo, and something everyone in the City will enjoy.

This decision came after Council members told Parks and Recreation Director Carl White that no more funds could be decided for the continuation of remodeling and improving areas around the Concho River from Oakes Street to Bell Street. These improvements would help with dredging, bank stabilization and trail work, an Old West Town where Concho Cadbury would put on continual reenactments many Tom Green residents have come to enjoy at Old Fort Concho, restrooms, electrical and lighting and more. White said these additional improvements would cost approximately $12,000, which is why he had hoped for direction from City Council on how to proceed with funding.

“We haven’t figured out a funding plan for [the added improvements] yet, but it could include house and sales tax, hotel occupancy tax for improvements that will bring in tourism, and maybe some money from the water fund,” White suggested. “We would be improving the water capacity and water quality. Grants are also a possibility. We got $2 million in grants with the last group of improvements, and Council could consider a bond. This is the presentation with what we’re interested in moving forward with.”

After his presentation, Council members were vehement that although they appreciated the work that has already been completed along the Concho River with the first stage of improvements, they had to ensure more focus stayed on the most important things, which at this time include streets and water.

Elizabeth Grindstaff, Single-Member District 5 Councilwoman, said, “The river is, if not, our single greatest asset out here in the community in regards to public space and the health benefits, and for the community to gather and not spend any money. It’s a beautiful environment. But right now, with what we have ahead of us regarding water rates, water infrastructure, and streets and infrastructure, I can’t imagine right now putting anything in front of those two projects until we have a solid plan in place.”

Additionally, Grindstaff mentioned that there was something “next on the agenda” that she felt to be an unexpected expense, and that she would rather the City get one thing finished before starting another.

“Right now, I would like to see this placed not in the forefront, and let us get some work done before we start talking about more public dollars for these kinds of activities,” Grindstaff added.

Johnny Silvas, SMD 3 Councilman, agreed with Grindstaff and said everyone knows the streets are in horrible condition, but that doesn’t mean the City is going to give up on streets to focus on the project such as the one White proposed.

“I think though this has to be looked at in regards to funds, or at least grants,” Silvas said. “I mean continue the process. We don’t have to shut this down. I totally agree with what [Grindstaff] is saying about everything else. It’s top priority, but if there’s a way to find the funding, to proceed to move forward, that’s fine. I’m okay with that.”

In response to Silvas, Grindstaff added that she believes the City has to have its plans in place for the next six months before anything else can be considered because even when going after private dollars, the City has to match those with public funds.

She stated, “I would prefer we at least wait six months before we talk about it again—in the sense of getting some other priorities taken care of—whether that be the house and sales tax, the hotel occupancy tax, or anything else. With other projects ahead of this, we can determine how much we have remaining, and how much we can provide for this.”

Rodney Fleming, SMD 1 Councilman, said he agreed with Grindstaff about this approach, but the City definitely had to focus on existing projects and echoed the timeframe of six months before these plans could be looked at again.

Fleming added, “I would like to see those things being built and finished and be in and see how the public takes to them. One of the things I have somewhat a problem with right now is that we spent between $10 and $12 million dollars now down there on the river total. We spent a lot of money, and I love it. It looks great, but I don’t see enough people using it.”

Because traffic hasn’t really picked up, Fleming said he wants projects that will bring in more money to have priority.

Charlotte Farmer, SMD 6, however, said she would like to see those things being built or fixed within the City, including those areas along the Concho River, to be finished and see how the public takes to them.

“One thing I’ve learned in city government is we don’t channel and do one thing at a time,” Farmer stated. “The completion of projects is very important. The priorities are very important. We don’t lose sight of those, and we just don’t stop working on those. In order to grow, it’s planting that seed. That’s why I want to move forward on this. While we are in the process of redoing our streets, this is a different group of funds and different money.”

For White, he wasn’t asking the Council to vote for a commitment, but rather to see where money was available.

Despite that, however, Grindstaff said that because public dollars fund these types of projects, she wants to see where the City is with current projects and funding.

“I have no interest in talking dollars,” she said.

With that final note, the Council agreed not to proceed or move forward at this time.

However, the “next item on the agenda,” which Grindstaff said was an “unexpected expense” involved a discussion and consideration of the City allocating $2.5 million dollars toward the City Auditorium Renovation and Expansion Project.

In 2010, voters originally approved $3.75 million for the renovation of the City Auditorium, and during the City Hall renovation, some of those funds went to infrastructure upgrades for the central plant and plumbing that would have served the auditorium and its expansion.

As of today, the Auditorium remains closed, and City Construction Manager David Knapp, who created the presentation with Rick Weis for City Council members, showed that the project has expanded beyond its original scope because of the improvements made with the $2.5 million in funds raised by the San Angelo Performing Arts Coalition, or SAPAC.

According to the presentation, the project will add an Annex onto the rear of the building. This building will have a basement and a ground level area. There will also be an add-on behind the stage area.

Overall, the cost of the entire project comes to $15.2 million dollars, and out of that amount, the following tentative numbers will be allocated toward the project:

  • 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: $1,876,747 (remaining)
  • Risk Management (roof): $ 304,119 (remaining)
  • SAPAC: $2,500,000
  • Naming Rights: $2,500,000

This amount equals $7.1 million. Therefore, the project needed an additional funding of $6.5 million. Out of that amount, COSA-DC suggested allocating $1.5 million and SAPAC offered to raise another $2.5 million for the additions, which left another $2.5 million left.

At that point, City Finance Director Tina Carriger spoke to Council Members about possible funding ideas for the remaining amount, which she suggested could either come from the Solid Waste Fund or the Hotel Occupancy Tax fund.

Grindstaff questioned Carriger about how it would be possible to use funds toward something that had nothing to do with a Republic Trash Services contract

“A year ago, we received a royalty payment through our new landfill contract--$3.6 million dollars,” Carriger responded. “We’ve turned those funds around a little bit and wanted to see how we can give back to our community. One of the recommendations, or suggestions, made by the Mayor was initially to use part of that money to help out the water fund; so the proposal before you today includes that amount and the dollar amount for the auditorium projects. That would leave just over $500,000 that would fall to the landfill fund balance to help push that for future projects. The current loss in the water fund for the current year is just over $1.8 million dollars, and then when you take the $1.25 million dollars, that would leave a final royalty amount of $500,000.”

Based on this explanation, Grindstaff asked if there were any restrictions on the use of these royalty funds, and Carriger said no.

To solidify this answer, Shane Kelton, director of the City’s Operations Department, said, “There are no restrictions on those funds. It was part of up-front moneys provided through the negotiated contract [with Republic]. It was given to improve the negative fund balance and issues we had within that fund; so it’s cleaned up, and we’re in good shape, so the funds are available for Council’s discretion."

Silvas, who said he was “all for the project,” said everyone in San Angelo would benefit from the improved-and-expanded Auditorium, but wanted to know how the Council would explain allocating these funds. At the same meeting, Council also approved the 2015-16 Fiscal Year Budget, and $115,000 was approved for street improvements through the General Fund.

“What do we tell the public when they’re seeing the condition of the streets and the infrastructure?” Silvas asked. “I mean again, we’ve got to balance it out, so we have to ask, is this more important than the other? So what do you tell them? How do you settle that?”

In answer to his questions, City Manager Daniel Valenzuela said, “Regardless, we’re planning to move forward with the streets and, of course, water as well. This is a visual project that again we need to take a look at as well. I do see it as a project that can be completed with a little more funding, but again, as far as the streets go, those are areas we’re very committed to and we will be funding regardless.”

After City Council members asked more questions about the contract with Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. and the specifics about ensuring funding with SAPAC, members agreed going forward with the Auditorium project would be for the good of San Angelo.

Grindstaff said, “Since it’s been six years, I know you said the project has grown, and most of that is driven by SAPAC. I think they’re a wonderful partner, and I think they can do what they say they’re going to do. I think it’s time to get this finished. I don’t think any of us intended, whether we were Council, that we would be six years down the road and still not have that auditorium operational.”

Because of this, Grindstaff said she doesn’t have any problem talking to the public about why this project takes preference over other things.

“This is an asset that is sitting and not finished out,” Grindstaff stated. “It’s a problem, so I think this one is more defensible than storming in the next phase of something right now that isn’t pressing. I consider this to be a very pressing issue, and we know that every school child in our region goes in and out of this building on a regular basis, not to mention all the things that are going to happen with SAPAC and all the wonderful performances and presentations it will bring.”

Farmer said the Mayor originally suggested using money from the Solid Waste Fund, and that afterward, the City could solicit private donations to assist in restoring the royalty balance. Either way, both Farmer and the Mayor felt the Auditorium an asset to the city.

“I’m for the project, and Rick and his guys can work and get the Auditorium open. SAPAC can get on with performing the arts that are so plentiful here in San Angelo and our surrounding community, so I support the idea. The mayor supports the idea,” Farmer added.

Fleming, before agreeing, however, said he wanted to make sure the money that was intended to clean up the old landfill site and assist in building a new one within 10 to 15 years would be covered with no issue.

“We have several years before the end of the existing site, and we have cleaned up our negative balance fund that we were struggling with,” Kelton responded. “We’ve also negotiated with Republic, and they will be in charge of those costs now. We’re projecting that we will have the funds. Whether that’s 12 or 20 years, there will be funds for the new landfill site.”

Fleming said his overall concern was to ensure the public that the City is not pulling money for the arts from some fund that was initially to be used for something else.

After Council members had all their questions answered, and learned that any funds in excess of project costs will be returned pro rata to each funding entity, Grindstaff motioned to approve the resolution for allocating the additional $2.5 million from the Solid Waste Fund. All Council members, excluding Marty Self, SMD 2 Councilman, who abstained from the vote, and Mayor Dwain Morrison, who was not present, approved the project.

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

Has anyone watched the movie, Money Pit? They could used the city hall as the subject. Citizens keep paying more for water and trash and now some of it is going to the city auditorium. Hey what about the streets and the water system?

I am ready to move from the city I was born in due to all the corruption. Why are these people still in office and dictating to us!

SnS, Fri, 09/04/2015 - 13:58

In 2010, voters approved $3.75 million for the Auditorium. The cost of "renovations" is now up to $15.2 million, a 400% increase in costs. Now the taxpayer's contribution will nearly double to $6.25 million.

So, to show that they really, really care about the infrastructure of the city, the city council throws the bone of $115,000 for streets out of the general fund to the 92,000 citizens of San Angelo, and in return, the citizens get to pay out an additional $2.5 million in prizes to the patrons of the arts. That's $1.25 per person for roads that most everyone uses, and $27.17 per person for the auditorium that few will use in the future.

That sounds about right for San Angelo, 'cause it's the patrons of the arts that can afford political contributions for local politicians...

What the hell. "something everyone in the City will enjoy". I doubt that very much. It will only be available to certain groups/people. Guaranteed. BTW, its the heat that is keeping people away(smell too), from the river.

Spending trash funds for the unused city auditorium...genius move from our genius city council; once again. Misallocation of funds that should go to trash related services for someone's pet project that will be used by the elite few in this town that go to the city auditorium that hasn't been used for years.

So when the trash company has to raise rates again so they can dig a new pit and put in new liners, I guess we will have to just suck it up as taxpayers once again? Wait, I have an idea! Let's use some of that 2.5 million dollars the council just wasted.

Or how about this? Something that does have to do with the Repubic contract is the city roads that they drive their trash trucks on every day. Every road in this town is driven upon by the Repubic trucks every day...shouldn't they be paying for some of the wear and tear?

Or how about trash pick-up along the roadways from all that blows out of their trucks when they are driving on the loop. BTW - I am getting sick and tired of reading the flashing sign that says, "Picking up your trash cost you money." Does the city council think we are all idiots? You mean picking up trash isn't free? For that matter,does anyone really believe that all the trash on the loop is from San Angeloans throwing trash out their windows and blowing out of the back of pick up trucks? I have personally seen trash flying out of Repubic trucks on their way to the dump.

They (City Council) will spend funds for something that will cost big bucks to run when it open (heating & cooling), plus build a walk on the southwest side of town, in a place that floods when it rains. But they do not want to fund the river walk on the east side of town. East side gets shafted again. Sorry council, but from where I stand, a lot more people would use the eastside river walk rather than spent big bucks for a onetime visit at the Auditorium.

The delay in getting anything going regarding repairing the lousy roads in this city is just infuriating. Millions get allocated for projects that should be a much lower priority than the surfaces that are used to drive on by the vast majority of the residents of San Angelo. Each time I have to drive down Southwest Boulevard in front of McDonald's I'm reminded of how long it's been since the road was not a rutted, jarring and pitiful excuse for a major street in this city.

Put the money towards repairing roads. Not the river, not the auditorium, not any more sidewalks from Sherwood Way to Knickerbocker Road, not any other useless beautification projects.

Once the roads are repaired, we can start to consider these money wasting aesthetic enhancements that they think will bring in hoards of tourists. Until then, take care of those of us who live and work here by spending our money wisely.

Another good example of why we need to vote in new council members. First they force an unwanted new trash plan on us (at a higher monthly cost) and now take money generated from the trash plan to help fund city auditorium renovations that most residents don't want and will never use. This appears to be a continuation of the 'tax and spend' council philosophy that sadly emulates Washington's 'shovel-ready spend all of our money on pet projects' approach. All of the city-funded downtown and river projects completed to date have been expensive failures in that usage of those areas has not increased significantly. So, let's go through the list one more time (pay attention, council members!):

1. Maintain, improve and repair our city's streets (and that implies more than just poorly-done chip seal).

2. Maintain, improve and repair our city's water system and water supply (again, that means more than just repair line breaks when they occur.

3. Maintain and improve out city's fire and law enforcement personnel and infrastructure - the safety of San Angelo should be one of your highest priorities.

Please reconsider and reverse this 2.5 million allocation at the next council meeting. If we need more 'arts' in our community ask people to paint pretty pictures on those dammed trash cans :)

Now, Now people... just take a chill pill here for a minute... You know each and every single one of us, if we were in the upper management echelon of this fair city, would not hesitate for a micro-second to approve all the spending going on by this bunch, in order to have your pockets lined with all the "under the table" kick backs and pay offs they are getting for swinging all these deals they are making with these contractors, businesses and projects..........

should be allowed to decide how this money is spent. obviously the city council has no idea what they are doing and they should all be voted out asap

Omg! Am I missing something or are we living in the twilight zone? This is an article I would expect to read on some corrupt city council in Arksnsas. Have these people even driven down the North end of Bell street? Not to mention the many other streets in this city that are barely drivable? Why would they even consider diverting this money toward a city auditorium when we have the current issues with the streets and water? Bad thing is, they see this is not going to go over well with the public and even acknowledge there are road and water issues needing to be addressed. And when there was no restriction placed on the Repibluc money it was probably because they never imagined it would be used for such a ridiculous purpose! Putting that money towards street improvements would be plausible considering those trucks use our city streets. It's a little hard to justify a city auditorium at such a ridiculous cost. But like they said no restrictions on the money so let's think of the most useless and superfluous way we can blow that money and that's where we will spend it. The public really needs to speak out about this!

Post a comment to this article here: