San Angelo City Council 9-4-18

[0:00:00] we'll call this City Council meeting to order on September the 4th we are going to ask Lang Carter to please lead us in prayer this morning hello will Belle with me Lord I want to thank you for this day that you've given us for all of us to gather together and in a meeting of the City Council of Santangelo and I pray that you give us guidance give us wisdom and let us do your will for your will be done this agenda will affect so many people today that we need to just make the the right decision and I ask for your guidance Laura thank you for this rain that you've given us and I pray that you send us more for we surely need it and thank you for these lighter temperatures that you've sent us Gloria thank you for everybody here present and I pray that you just watch over us and give us guidance and pray these things your name Jesus Christ amen this morning we have the San Angelo Lakers organization I think there's a series of 11 year olds who want to come up here Michael Robinson Jordan sellers Joseph Sal doggo and Isaac Harding would you please come forward [Applause]

[0:02:26] our Proclamation this morning is a proclamation of September as national Childhood Cancer Awareness Month do I have someone in the audience please come forward families caregivers charities and research research groups across the United States as well as our national government are observing the month of September as national national Childhood Cancer Awareness Month to memorialize the young lives that have been taken too soon and to honor those fighting and those that have survived but yet face major health challenges associated with this disease approximately 13,500 children under the age of 18 will be diagnosed with cancer in 2018 and approximately 1 in 5 children diagnosed with cancer will die within the first 5 years childhood cancer is a leading cause of death among children under the age of 18 according to the most recent statistics provided the Centers for Disease Control while progress against some childhood cancers has been made cure raised for many forms of childhood cancer remain less than 50% the incidence of childhood cancers is increasing at a more rapid rate than any other age and crosses all racial ethnic Geographic and social backgrounds finally gold has been the official ribbon color for childhood cancer awareness since 1977 therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim the month of September 2018 as national childhood cancer awareness month in San Angelo Texas energy all citizens to wear gold to show their support and to honor their children fighting the fight their families and caregivers the researchers and health care professionals concerned citizen advocates and private

[0:04:28] philanthropies which collaborate to provide hope and assistance to the children and their families affected by childhood cancer yes and then we're going to have you speak city council my name is Becky Powers and I am honored again this year to accept this proclamation on behalf of these families and others in the concho Valley who have been impacted by childhood cancer I am speaking today as a representative of turning gold a foundation started by my cousin Angela who is a San Angelo native and her husband Mike after their son Charlie was diagnosed in May of 2012 who is Stage four a high risk neuroblastoma at the age of four today Charlie is cancer-free however because children who and who survived their initial cancer diagnosis face an eight-time higher risk of future disease due to their treatments Charlie's fight does continue you heard some of the facts about childhood cancer in the reading of the proclamation sadly these facts have remained much the same over the past four years in which Santangelo has proclaimed September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month childhood cancer remains the leading cause of death of our children under the age of 18 yet in spite of that fact childhood cancer research remains seriously underfunded with only 4% of the national cancer research budget being designated for research of all types of childhood cancer so the goal of turning gold is simple we want to enable a cure for childhood cancer we are working toward this by taking a two-armed approach to funding research we want to fight for the children who have yet to be diagnosed those who are currently battling and the ones who have survived to this end we donate funds through the Children's Oncology Group for cancer research and the greedy

[0:06:31] Children's Cancer Research Institute at the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio for long-term survivorship research so September is national childhood cancer awareness month this is our opportunity as a city top to honor children and families affected by this disease but it's time that action surpasses mere awareness action means moving the needle and changing the lies by rallying support for a child for groundbreaking research that can save our kids lives together we have the power to turn it gold we have the power to turn life loss into life we can transform the research together we can turn childhood cancer awareness into more childhood cancer research join us as we turn it gold one way you can do this is to pick up a gold ribbon like this from the back table take it home tie it around a tree or your mailbox feel free to take an extra for a friend or a neighbor who'd be willing to do the same I've also left some gold ribbon stickers and information cards as well as my contact information if your business or organization would like to partner with us to turn it gold please don't hesitate to contact me I would welcome the opportunity to share our mission with you and to have you join us now I'd like you to meet these families who are here with us today my name is Brooke Gomez and my granddaughter lost her battle last year ELISA Gomez due to medulloblastoma which is brain cancer so please help us turn Santangelo gold thank you hello i'm jennifer Wiese this is my daughter journey she's four years old but when she was eight weeks old she was diagnosed with neuroblastoma she is cancer-free today and we just asked that you help spread the word and help turn it gold Cheyenne holic our daughter Hadley holic

[0:08:37] was diagnosed with a type of rare brain cancer called a TR T when she was six months old and she lost her battle with cancer at 16 months old and we supriya appreciate the support to turn it gold I'm sure like everybody else in the audience after hearing the stories and understanding what people go through that what we do today kind of seems minor doesn't it I would ask that everyone please put your cell phones on silent we are going to go into public comment issues or items that are not on the agenda maybe raised by the public at this time citizens should speak from the podium begin by stating their name and limit remarks to less than three minutes council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda the council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items I would ask if there's any public comment today would anybody like to come forward and share with us with no public comment we will

[0:10:45] move into the consent agenda I will ask each council member if there's anything they would like to pull from the consent agenda Tommy no ma'am Gary no ma'am Lucy Lane Billy yes okay being pulled from the consent agenda may I please have a motion to accept all items with exception of C please so moved second all in favor say aye motion passes seven zero we will now go into item C consider acceptance of a non warranty deed conveying to the city of San Angelo the following properties one Park areas designated out of block three section one Meadow Creek addition park areas designated out of block six section one Meadow Creek addition park three is designated out of block six section four metal creaking park areas designated out of blocked in section five metric condition and five park areas designated out block 22 section eight Meadow Creek addition Cindy Iran Billy do you have a question for her I do Cindy good morning since the computers are down I can't read specifically but it was when I was reading the background material there was a statement I'm talking about the conveyance of the deed to the city of San Angelo and then there was an additional statement that said the tax appraisal district showed that the city owned the property so my question is who would be deeding these properties to the city if it's if the tax roll said the city already owns them I didn't understand that Lots were actually part of a plant and the plant identifies the Lots as park the there was another park area a lot that was actually deeded to an adjacent property owner by our prior

[0:12:47] owner and developer of that subdivision we're asking that a local attorney who is working with the city to work with the prior officer of that company to sign a quick claim deed to the city okay all right so we in fact do not own these properties already it's the point opinion of the city attorney that we do not own the properties that they have been because they're labeled as Park that the appraisal district put them in the name of the city when in fact we've never had any park improvements on the property we're just trying to clean up title to it and allow the city to possibly dispose of the properties Thank You Cindy that answers my question do I have further questions for Cindy from counsel then do I have a motion to accept item C yeah I make the motion to accept item C on the consent agenda a second all in favor of approving item C of the consent agenda police say aye all right with no nays the motion passes 7-0 we will now move into the regular agenda item a is discussion of possible options for the curbside recycling program and any possible amendments Josephine oh are you going to present or Shane Kelton okay I want to remind Council that there is a contract with Republic Services with the city so some of the questions you might ask the attorney will tell you you cannot ask them so just know it's alright to ask it doesn't mean that we can get into the details okay go ahead good well good morning my name is David Daniel I'm the general manager of Republic Services got into town in June and Angelo State alumni so I'm back home didn't imagine the first time I address

[0:14:52] council would be to talk about recycling but unfortunately the state of recycling has changed and we need we need to address some of those issues so I kind of walk backwards to go forward the program started in 2015 and had a goal of diverting about 500 tons from the residential recycle program and then in February of 2016 there was a 50 cent charge implemented because the tonnage was less than 500 tons so currently we're averaging about 360 tons a month with 25 to 30 percent contamination so right now the average home generates about a hundred and eighty-two pounds of trash and about 24 pounds of trash of recycling per month so we're divert diverting just over 10% of the recycling so the reason we're here today is because the literally the world of recycling has changed in in 2017 China announced that they were going to implement new tariffs and new changes to the recycling they used to import 40% of the world's recycling okay today they're down to about 10% and and no longer take mix paper so the other piece of it is contamination so when the recyclers would sort and mix and sort and Bale all the recycle material China allowed a three to five percent contamination rate 120 18 they implemented a point five percent contamination so if you imagine a thousand pound Bell you used to have 50 pounds of contamination in it now it has to have less than five to be marketable so so the literally the world of recycling has changed mixed paper went from about ninety seven dollars a ton from four marketing material to now less than five and China takes zero

[0:16:56] makes paper anymore the other thing and I brought my water bottle which does not stand straight it used to about five years ago take 48,000 water bottles to make a bellow plastic now it takes 90 mm water bottles to make that same and it has to be a cleaner material going overseas so now we have to collect more material to get the same way with less contamination to make the same Bela material we've just kind of in 2018 though literally the country and if you've read all the newspaper articles from just about everywhere in the country the world of recycling has changed it's not it's not just a San Angelo issue it literally is is a country in a world world issue so what we are asking is to really negotiate with you guys because we're in a spot where where we've got to we've got to change something right so there's several options that we can do to partner with you guys the way we have for for many years and really are looking to negotiate with you all and find what option best is best for the city and feel like if we work with staff and with council pretty quickly we can go through one or two options that really kind of fit the direction of what you want us to to accomplish and and come up with and with a new a new world of recycling so that's that's what we have for you today we entertain any questions you may have number one thing I want to say is that without a doubt I would ask that council support me and having a series of town hall meetings with the citizens so we better understand their perspective on recyclables and what they might think would be a an option for them or no options from them I don't believe Council today should should direct us in any direction

[0:18:57] because it's all about the citizens and there was so much controversy in the past over this contract so we need citizens input will be having town hall meetings with that said we can entertain questions but no decision of course or direction will be given today thank you would you please I guess I'd ask a couple questions as we look at recycling today curbside recycling there are more citizens doing that but we're still not a hundred percent we're probably 40 to 50 percent of the citizens now five years ago before we started reciting reciting that was probably ten to fifteen percent if we're not going to have curbside recycling what'll ultimately happen is is we're going back to ten or fifteen percent of the people that are that will recycle regardless of how we we make this happen so that means that there's going to be more tonnage in the landfill that also means that there'll be a difference in the way that trash has picked up simply because in my household I have two recycling cans and one trash can okay I know that we are probably not going to hold that stuff and transport at some place within the community I just I just know that that's not gonna happen so now one of the things we're gonna have to be looking at is is I got twice as much trash as I've had before or maybe even more than that because I was recycling probably more than more than 50% of my stuff so I think as we go forward one of the things we need to be cognizant of is this okay now if we're not going to have curbside recycling there's going to be more opportunity for for residents to be throwing everything in the trash that means we need to be really looking at are we only going to pick up trash once a week or we're gonna have more cans what do we need to do as we go

[0:21:00] forward with this so those are things that I didn't know that citizens are going to be interested in the other thing that they're going to be interested in how can we do this without any more cost to us so we've got to figure that out I have to agree with the mayor we're going to have to get some input from citizens that already have heard from a number of citizens on this particular issue and so the I pass that kind of stuff along to Republic and do the city as we move forward may I assume to come forward for just a minute because certainly with the conversation that we're having now it has some impact on the landfill so does this change the amount of trash that we're going to have at the landfill and force us into addressing landfill issues sooner than later depending on depending on which options or what we want to look at moving forward and how we want to move forward if we're still diverting or if we're just do completely away with curbside recycling we go completely back to trash yes we'll see an increase of three hundred and thirty three hundred and sixty tons per month we'll go back into our landfill that will hasten the lifespan of what we have left in our of our landfill but not drastically instead of looking at a 15 year we might it might back down to twelve or thirteen year lifespan at that point depending on what the stream depending on the stream may I ask what other towns in West Texas are doing as it relates to this China issue as as far as I know San Angelo is the only West Texas town that has a curbside recycling across the state many many people have changed so they can change the stream they can pass along the cost increase to their constituents there's not one answer for that because many many every one of the cities have picked a different option

[0:23:03] right so you could be partial partial take mixed paper out and then the cost increase may change a little bit so they may take some of the options and combine them to create their own that was best for their citizens relative to the amount of trash that we pick up if you statistically how much do we pick up per person in the city of San Angelo compared to other cities that's actually a great question so right now the city of San Angelo has an every other week recycle program and we average about 12 pounds per pickup so that's about 24 pounds a month and and challenge that I was in in the Houston area we did 12 to 18 pounds per week so the amount and then the contamination was was probably in the 20 to 15 percent instead of the 25 to 30 they had less contamination and recycled more goods so relative I would say half to the ones that are have have had a program active for you know several years I have for the building would you like to ask a question please your comment on your second bullet there where it says temporarily suspend the marketing of material what is the impact of that of temporarily when San Angelo citizens temporarily that would mean that the recycling would temporarily go into the landfill until the state and the world of recycling kind of normalizes China's continuing to threaten and implement different tariffs on recycling so nobody that I know of really knows what the end state of recycling looks like going into 19 20 and 21 it could it could come back to a more favorable market but it's they're not predicting that to happen and so you know we could ride out the wave until it becomes a trend and normalizes and then

[0:25:06] make a decision but that's kind of what that means is it would temporarily go and then we could read ress it in a three six nine twelve month period the bullets three and four are really similar okay so I mean you can probably have one without the other right okay Thank You Lane you have a question comment to two questions one of them might be the first question Theresa says you can't answer with the contract that we have through recycling with butts how is that going to affect them or is it going - are they gonna try to request that increased cost is that that line item number one the second question is define mixed papers that is that paper with cardboard materials also or as cardboard separate are cardboards its own stream and what you're holding is considered white paper so mixed paper is newspapers all your print ads that you get in the mailbox and things like that typically it makes up about 20 to 25% of the recycle stream so the answer your other questions but TSA's is being a great partner with us working with us every way possible they will continue to take the commercial cardboard that we pick up around the city and are entertaining any of the options that we that we have going forward but the current state of single stream residential recycling is can't be bared by them I know that adjacent increase was because at first we were not meeting our tonnage which was set up in the contract to to kind of put it back into perspective the cost of recycling has increased since January four hundred and eighty seven percent so it's it's it's it's more than just a sort and sorting out

[0:27:08] problem and it's also the marketing of the material problem January so you could conceive that when we recycle the recyclables will become cardboard only certainly it would be something that we would no longer even consider a conversation about fifty cents per customer for not meeting goals just so we're talking the same language Tommy Dave talk to us a little bit if this counsel said we're just going to stay with the current contract we executed a contract in good faith and we just want to stay for that contract talk to talk to us about that we would come back to Council with what the actual cost of the increase of the change in the market would be so it would be a cost increase okay if we just say we're going to stay with the current contract we're not going to do anything I assume that's an option we have so please Daniel would you like them Tommy and well we are getting as far as the the contract discussions negotiations what could happen if one party does not to agree right so that would be something that quite frankly would require our CD attorneys input so at this point we're not ready to discuss okay all right yes when is what that time spanned are we talking about like when is this supposed to take place and from our perspective the sooner the better we're addressing counsel now because our contract with Butz has expired and the options we have to continue at the current state are no longer there so whatever council decides we would ask that we go as quickly as possible knowing that means different

[0:29:10] things right so as quick as possible as is the answer so I think the number one thing is we want to make sure that we get some town hall meetings set up in various parts of the city each council member might work with the city to get your areas in a town-hall meeting so we can quickly citizens input to decide which direction yes this may be torched Eraser somebody over item mr. Dana let me see before we go before we go further into this it's kind of hard to go there with saying what are the the cost options here is this a million dollar problem is it a two million dollar problem is it a five hundred can you ask that as we go to these town hall meetings somebody's gonna say okay so let's say and we'll have people for and against it I mean we're all gonna have to sit down and get feedback and you know this will be a hard decision coming forward but we can't go in there without maybe a broad spectrum idea of you know this is a million dollar problem for the city is it a million and a half is it a 500,000 I know just by looking if you can't get rid of that stuff you're gonna have to haul that somewhere else so that involves trucks and frightened fuel and and and I think that's a difficult part to answer is depending on what we choose to do right so there's there's so many options within these options that that we could shake shake this thing up in many different many different ways but just as is if nothing changed you're you're somewhere between a 700,000 and a million dollar problem so the the reality is is if the citizens say we don't want curbside recycling goes into our landfill that would seem to me then there's no additional cost to you exact reduced cost feasibly yeah if you're not

[0:31:15] doing two trucks per household every week it's not a one-for-one you have two trash cans today we're not gonna reduce the number of trash cans they might both be brown burs brown and green but we're not changing the number of trash cans so whoever's trash is X amount of pounds my trash pounds don't change because I'm using a green and a brown right to greens my trash load doesn't change the amount of trash in the city of San Angelo and pounds will not change correct the only thing that changes is the cost of recycling and if in fact you reduce the amount of recycling curbside pickups your costs go down so we just need to say that so people can start to decide what their options are for the time you have for the question Tommy comment do I have any further questions or comments from Council thank you very much all right so we're gonna start getting the town hall meeting set up and see where we go with the trash we will move into item B second reading and public hearing on an ordinance for case z18 - 1/3 a rezoning from the general commercial heavy commercial c g CH and single-family residential RS one zoning districts to the heavy commercial CH two zoning district or alternatively to the planned development pd 18-0 for zoning district being 2.05 three acres located at thirty fourteen grape Creek Road John thank you John James Director of Planning and Development Services got these in the opposite order so let me skip to that case this is the item that

[0:33:20] you saw last time the Hirschfeld property grape Creek Road in West 31st and so your recommendation at that time was a planned development instead of the straight rezoning to heavy commercial as they had requested so some of this I'm going to skip through quickly because it's what you saw last time but just as a reminder this is an area that the long-range comprehensive plan shows for and trill development however it's split with commercial zoning on this side of the line and residential zoning on that side and you recall that the property owner adjacent to the residential zone portion had concerns about some of the things that were happening on that adjacent property again some pictures if we need to go back to but here's the home and then here's the Hirschfeld property next door so what we came back with was a plan development your recommendation was to include no buildings structures or storage within that 55 feet of that East property line you can see that here on the map so not exactly the same as where the the zoning boundary is today but basically 55 feet from that Eastern property line based on the discussion we added a couple of other provisions that we wanted to put out there for your consideration it wasn't part of the motion so these items are additional but again we wanted to bring them out for your consideration one was no vehicular access from 31st Street there currently is no curb cuts or via cooler access from that street so one thing you might consider a given that this is all residential back here is continuing that by prohibiting access from 31st something similar that we've done in other plan developments like this that are adjacent to residential is limiting the hours of activity this would coincide with our we have a current noise ordinance that limits

[0:35:23] noise activities already between those hours and so we would suggest for your consideration a limitation on activity on that side within those time frames after 10:30 or before 7:00 a.m. and then as well a limitation on lighting we already require in certain areas lighting be shielded so that you know if they're lighting up the property it can't shine over into the residential areas this would apply that cup of provision within that 55 feet so that for example they couldn't put big light poles along that boundary to light up their yard that would spill over a lot into the residential area so again those that's a summary of the planned development that's in your packet we definitely like feedback on those items again that just a reminder that wasn't part of your motion last time but we wanted to put those ideas out just as a reminder staff does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission recommend approval of the straight commercial heavy commercial zoning but staff is recommending approval of the plan development that we've included in your packet I'll be happy to answer any questions if you met with the homeowner and the business owner and discuss these items and got their support we have not actually would we normally do that well nor in the normal process where we go through our process we would meet with them during the process but typically from first reading the second reading if it's possible to do that we do but given the short turnaround getting these items into your packet for second reading there really just wasn't time to have those meetings in the few days by the time we had to get this in I'm guessing that those folks may be here today unless they were completely comfortable

[0:37:25] with your recommendation last time so it's two weeks ago that we discussed this so in two weeks we haven't had conversation with them okay so any is a property owner a business owner in the audience do I have questions from Council I asked if anyone was in the audience from the business or the residential area and doesn't seem like there is do you have a question tom you think this solves a problem if he claims lightning hits his house because of the adjacent part of that which it has happened a couple of times since they moved the medal in there aren't they aren't storing anything in that it's it's hit there couple times now he claims it's it's not as severe but it's Billy pointed out his car porting the pictures are still made out of steel and pop we go back to that picture that shows how close the fence is to the residential structure questions did he get hit last night or the night before I don't know that I can completely answer that question I think I don't know that it solves all of the problems that he raised it solves the concerns that I think we have the ability through an ordinance like this to address by keeping materials away from those residential properties but it it may not solve all of the issues that he raised would we talk would we be talking about the northeast corner of that or we're just talking the entire side and what I'm worried about is what if a point in time they want it to sell this or somebody else buys that are they or there's a transition of ownership here you've got a piece of property that has something to it that might you know hinder it happening either way and it's not down a property line so it's really a footprint on a footprint on a

[0:39:27] footprint for what we've got so now we've got two things we have to juggle I guess I'd have a couple answer stuff first of all the simple answer is that we drew the 55 feet from the whole side property line this does give this would allow them to do more on the property than they are today because today this whole yellow area is residentially zoned so they basically can't do anything industrial or commercial on the property this PD limits them pretty severely though they can't store anything build anything they could potentially Park vehicles or some other describe what they can do because we're talking about what they can't do what can they do the only thing I can think of as part vehicles it would be my suggestion to not rush this I mean we I think we need to talk about these people if that didn't harm anybody else here I think we need to talk to her field when he talked about and see if this solves the problem I would hate to make a motion today and it not doing it and I don't think this will be hard to do I mean I can see that up with John and he and I can have a phone call with Herschel people and Vayner same thing I just hate to go forward with this right now do I have other questions or comments from Council then what I would ask do you want to make a motion to do I need a motion to postpone this to a future meeting yes and our request would be that you just pick a date certain whether it's the next meeting or two meetings from now I think it should be in the next meeting only because we've already had concerns so I think the sooner the better and so I would ask that at the next city council meeting which would be September the 18th that we be ready to vote on this item nothing like motion I think consensus is fine consider an appeal from a denial by the design and historic Review

[0:41:32] Commission D HRC regarding exterior improvements to a building located at 20 to 20 B north Chadbourne Street John thank you as you mentioned this is an appeal of an amendment to a previous River corridor approval and I'll talk a little bit first before I get into the specifics of the case about what exactly that means the as you know we've talked about at a previous meeting amending the boundaries of the river corridor but we currently have what's called the river corridor district which encompasses areas along the river as well as a large area of downtown in which development standards that are higher standards as well as a different review process for development in those areas those would apply some of the purposes from the river corridor master plan that created this include protecting the public investment in these areas the importance of downtown in particular but also the river corridor cities invested a lot of money in making the river what it is today and wanting to protect that by being aware of and approving what goes next to the river or and in close proximity to the river as well as downtown similarly protecting property values and helping to promote promote tourism by ensuring that there's high quality development in these areas so there are some general criteria in the river corridor master development plan which is what the downtown or the design and historic review Commission looks at as they review proposed development activity in these areas and as it says there the purpose is to strike a balance between providing flexibility in building design yet promoting and ensuring a consistent design quality that's one of the issues that that commission struggles with is wanting to encourage high quality development in the area and let building owners and property owners and business owners do what they think is necessary for their business but also ensuring that that is high quality and particularly in a

[0:43:36] downtown area where buildings are literally touching each other what one business does can can positively or negatively affect the business right next door and so again the idea is to balance both the needs and in this context the historic needs of a property with the use demands of contemporary buildings so some of the specific criteria that they look at in context with this particular request it talks about colors discouraging bright colors discouraging lots of whites and cool grays not having a lot of reflective glass in a downtown you like that what designers call permeability you like to be able to see in the businesses and so you don't want where there's glass you don't want mirrored glass for example is is known to be not not good for business activity but it talks about things like natural earth colors and so that those are some of the things that the Commission looks at it encourages things like stone brick concrete precast stone in terms of architectural materials and so that played into the D HRC's recommendation as well so here's what was originally approved back in June of 2017 this did get tears funding as well to help remodel the exterior of this building so there's a stucco finish so that's not the original finish on the building which was originally brick or stone but it had a stucco finish applied over the outside so the original approval was to take that at a door and two windows on either side as you can see here also placing a canopy out over the sidewalk as well as some lights and landscape planters and so that was approved as requested by the property owner went to the design historic review Commission they approved it as requested however what the property owner went out

[0:45:42] and did was actually something different and so once staff was made aware that what was installed on the building did not meet what was approved we contacted the property owner and she applied for an amendment to that original approval basically to approve what she had done instead of of what was approved so what that did was added a couple of additional windows and Sitta - it's now four slightly different color on the top and then the real issue is the white tile here that is what the the main thing that the Commission had a concern with this white hexagonal tiling and I'll talk in a second about what their specific concerns were with that again this is the comparison with what was approved versus what what color was used and so the rationale that the Commission gave in denying this number one was the lack of information the applicant did not attend either meeting where this was discussed of the Commission and so they didn't get the answers that they felt they needed particularly on the white tile there was concern that that appeared to be a bathroom top tile that wasn't an exterior tile number one number two that it wasn't the style and shape of tiles that would have been used on a building of this era and so the Commission specifically mentioned they didn't have a problem with tile if it was a top of tile that would have been used on this building that was built in this time period but that hexagonal tile is really a different type of tile that is not typical on an exterior of a building also the white is kind of a stark contrast to all of the more muted colors of both the adjacent buildings as well as this particular building I should add

[0:47:46] that for the most part the Commission didn't have a big problem with the lights the color the windows it was really the tile that was at issue but for procedural reasons they denied the whole thing they one of the things they discussed was approving everything but the tile but and I think that if I could speak for them their recommendation to you all would be to approve everything except the tile but again for procedural reasons they their vote was to deny the request up or down on the whole thing so the options that you have before you you could approve as requested you could approve but making any changes that you see fit for example the tiling either approving a different tiling or I think what the Commission had recommended was going back to what was originally approved and just having them do what they initially requested and said they were going to do or you could just simply deny the whole thing and the building would have to be returned to what it was before staff does recommend approval with whatever changes you all recommend and as mentioned the Commission design and historic review Commission did recommend denial unanimously with that I'll be happy to answer any questions would you go back and put the picture of the original building please so it was a solid wall yes no rock no brick that's correct is it a historically listed built registered building it is not and that's actually something I meant to mention is that there are two different types of review in the river corridor if it has a historic designation then the bar is set higher it has to meet historic design

[0:49:48] standards to a much higher degree if it's not it historically designated then it just needs to meet what we call the river corridor guidelines which historic character can be taken into account but it's not a it's not the high bar in terms of completely matching or being consistent with historic design standards for a building and so it's a lower bar but again historic context of both the existing building and surrounding buildings can be taken into account I think my first concern is is we have a system there were two Commission's we have a tiers board and we have a downtown historic review committee and if we approve things with those two Commission's there's a reason for it and there's assumption that what is presented would be executed the execution should be in line with what was proposed for the approval originally given by both boards so dope Harry would you like to make comments please this is downtown so it's in my district and I have to agree with what the mayor has to say and that is quite honestly they brought a plan before the DHR sea and they didn't they didn't do that plan they didn't adopt that plan they did something different so the bottom line is from my perspective is is if we go through these particular agencies these Commission's boards and commissions we ought to be doing what we say we're going to be doing so quite honestly bringing this before council to me today even though that's that's their privilege to do that I have to stay with the D HRC on this you know the first of all we what you really need to make you make sure that we're being consistent downtown and that's what those two Commission's are do those boards are doing so from my perspective we've really got to support what what

[0:51:51] they're doing especially when they they are doing it by the book I have Lane would you like it I think consistency is the number one issue here so another question I have is if we deny this appeal will it go back to the D HRC and they can they can approve everything at that level or will it come back to us after that no I believe you're the final appeal on this you could I'm guessing Theresa they could remand it back to the D HRC for a final decision yes but again I think speaking for the D HRC again even though they denied the whole thing their recommendation to you all is to approve everything except the white tile and that something else be done either they're original or something different now so I suppose what you could do is approve everything but the white tile and send that decision back to the D HRC for a decision on something different D HRC has already approved the tile for this building so if we deny this then there's already standards met they would have to go back and do one of those standards correct they essentially would have to go back and for the area where the white tile is they would have to go back and do it like the original request was as well as the windows well that's up to you again the D HRC was okay with the change to the windows why is that it wasn't approved so I'm just questioning well I think what we encouraged them to do was not to not to penalize someone for doing something different but to look at it fresh as if if somebody came in with this proposal today would you approve it or not approve it and so thinking of it like that they were okay with the changed colors the changed windows and and so they didn't want to punish them for doing it differently if they would have approved those differences in the first place I

[0:53:54] just want to ask you what she told this from the very beginning what the restrictions would be yes well again we didn't tell her she had to do those colors no she came in and said here's what I want to do and everybody said yeah that looks great go ahead and do it historic review come look I mean that shade of green representatives within the historic guideline color palette so nobody thought to actually tell her you have to do what you came and got approval to do I mean that's kind of a given there's a series of colors that they recommend selecting from so the question yeah I think this isn't a question sorry it's a comment my concern is president and that really becomes the biggest issue in terms of if we approve the changes that were not part of the original plan that we basically are proving anybody who wants to do what they want to do what they're building even if it isn't the original plan it's okay well it's kind of wondering if we deny it they go ahead and go back to D H R C and if for the windows they could work it out or not and at that point they can say change it or not change it if they see fit the board that those extra windows are there but besides the precedence is already set to where that board has been okaying projects throughout the history of it and we don't want to set that precedence of someone else and going against them on the tiers funding what did the tiers board fund because they usually specific name the specific things tiers board approved for funding well they they approved those exterior improvements to the building now at the yes now at the time the tears board their approvals were a little more open-ended and so they they didn't get as much into

[0:56:00] the design details partly because they defer to the D HRC and so they're really just looking at the funding amounts and the top of improvements so I it's it's not necessarily accurate to say that they approved this design design it was approved by another board correct and what about the canopy because that was part of the original design well and that's something that we've struggled with determining whether or not if if an applicant brings forward a whole package do we consider that as a package and they have to do it all or none or can they do parts of it and either not do parts of it or wait to do those later what our current application of the rules is is that they have approval to do that canopy but they're under no obligation to do it if they do a canopy it has to meet those standards now the either you or the D HRC in most cases could make that a condition of the approval but in this case they didn't they could say well we only like the windows if you have a canopy over it and they could make those they could tie those together but again in this case they did not do that any further questions Billie I just have a couple of comments because I agree with what I heard that we should stand pretty firm on our position on holding them accountable to the rule my thought that if something was approved and they changed all of that then I don't think this council should second-guess as Harry said the historic historic design review committee but at the same time I have to tell you and driving by that building those windows and that color is much more has much more carbon

[0:58:04] peel then the lighter color and those other windows and doors that looked more opaque so I think I think this is what Lane was suggesting is that you know if we uphold the denial here and then this property owner decides to go back to the district Design Review Committee and you know to seek approval on this I think you know maybe that's what I would like to see done on the on you know the other comment I'd make when I was reading the application it did say any changes to the design made after this approval may require a second approval and apparently the applicant didn't go back you know once they changed what they were going to do so they had an application that they signed that said that if they change the design that they would go back before you know the historic review committee and they did not do that so you know I think we should you know move on this and let them then go back and you know to seek approval for whatever they don't want to change and let me clarify that while she didn't apply to get those changes approved before she did them she Scents applied and that's the appeal you're hearing today is she did go back to the D HRC and say are you okay with these differences and they said no and so I guess I want to be careful sure we know what we're saying I don't find that she should have gone back I'm sorry to interrupt you Johnny you should have gone back in my opinion before she did this you know to seek that approval because that's what she the way I see it that's what she agreed to in in the application that she filled out that she would go back if she was making some changes to what had been approved so I don't know that's that's just the rule and I like to see the

[1:00:07] rules followed if we have something in writing that somebody's signing it's hard because if you prove it here and then you don't do somebody else's we're not being consistent and you precedents I think we want to make sure that if we have these commissions and there's rules and regulations formed that we follow as said so Tom go ahead she said as I mentioned she didn't come to either of those Commission meetings so and this autumn isn't listed as a public hearing and I don't actually don't know if she's here or not but you might open it up for comment if she is here to make her case I think that would be fair is Michelle here no so I'm with y'all I mean she went off the reservation here brought something in and went a path that wasn't approve and she knew that all right now we have to look at and say okay if we make a move on this does she just walk away from it and leave it as is can she walk away from and say I'm just not gonna mess with it would be considered a violation that we could issue citations or we could keep on the property owner and technically even if the property sells that obligation would go with that property so that's not an easy task but we could keep following up and even take it to me to court to try to get it returned back to I have one last question and it's let's go Rick can you look at this you know I agree with everything John said I will say that if we send it back to the design and historic review commission based on what John has told us their recommendation is I believe today if you move forward with approving this less the tile and saying as long as she returns it to the original plan of what she presented I mean if you want to you know go back to that that I think the D hrc recommend recommending they're okay with the color of the awning and and the there's no awning I'm sorry the the color scheme

[1:02:10] and the additional window but the tile has got to change and originally what was proposed where the tile is what was in the original leave it was the same just just the same stucco walls just painted a different color well it changes the whole look of the building when you add that much glass to it historic district 2 here you had a question or comment just a real quick comment I have to agree with what Billy said it looks a lot better than then then some of the surrounding buildings but we have to be consistent we have to be make sure that that these property owners follow what what they're tell us they're gonna do when they go before these boards and commissions so quite honestly I think in this particular case regardless of how hard it is on on the property owner which she didn't come to the d-r-e HRC meeting and evidently she's not here at this particular meeting we I think we have to go back and support what DHR C is and just uphold its denial the other issue is you see the color as it is what you don't have is what color would it look like if it would have been executed so you only see what you see and so okay do I have a motion Harry oh wait go ahead Perry and let me remind you again that that a full-out denial is not what I think that the Commission would have recommended again they were okay with the other changes and it was only the tile so again what did they originally prove right and if that's your that if that's your intent then the motion would be just a flat-out denial that's correct I think the motion needs to be that we uphold the denial on this all the way through and and I think what that does is it kind of tells the rest of the the downtown property owners that there's a proper procedure to go through and if they need to make changes then they need

[1:04:13] to come back before the Commission and do that so from my perspective my motion is really to stop the whole denial there a second second any public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of Harry's motion say aye any opposed motion passes 7 0 item D consider ratifying a resolution by cosa DC authorizing the use of sales and use tax funds in an amount not to exceed 120 1000 dollars to provide master planning services for a business and industrial park located at the city of San Angelo Airport Mathis field was participation by the city of San Angelo for projected authorized under Chapter 505 of the local government code for type B Development Corporation's guy you're on good morning mayor City Council mr. Valenzuela guy Andrews director of economic development is you will recall one of our goals in economic development is to improve our infrastructure and especially at the airport this particular plan covers what is outside of the facilities of the airport there's also a grant that's been approved for it actually the airport facilities themselves with inside the fence and that sort of things so what the area that we're talking about in this particular proposal is basically this area this in green him in blue outside of the fence of the area this will be made available with the closing of a north-south runway this used to be part of the no fly area for safety in that so with closing that facility or that

[1:06:18] particular runway it will make this particular facility available for commercial development of the airport we'll figure that out how to there we go in this RFQ Centurion planning design selected for master planning services under city requests for quotes on this this is outside of the FAA proposed a 2018 grant for the facilities within the airport it's non aviation related elements not eligible for FAA funding master plan proposal tasks would include real estate portfolio review and analysis including the community context and stakeholder engagement a market assessment of relevant commercial uses and aviation related benchmarking asset positioning because their conceptual land-use diagram and presentation of findings and then there's also an element of own Airport water wastewater treatment plant evaluations there is a wastewater facility this is not in use on that on the airport at this time that would be an included evaluation of whether that facility might be used because sewer is an issue in this plan total fees for this and this does come as a recommendation from the cosa d c-- board of directors for ratification would be a total fee of one hundred and twenty thousand nine hundred ninety one dollars I was thinking that we discussed that this master plan was not only what was inside the fence but what the

[1:08:23] property the city owns outside the fence and so I have a question about that because that's not what that reflected Michael do you have a comment on that no go ahead I think I think this is the piece outside the fence that the FAA won't fund and so this is alternate funding for or possible development outside the fence which could be available for non aeronautical uses that's the key is that non aeronautical availability kicks it out of the FAA funding bucket okay so but the red mark around that area that would be with all within the fence line right is that within the fence line no ma'am that's outside of the fence line okay so it's the entrance primarily the entrance that vacant property as you enter the airport and it includes the parking area and the rental car area I think that would be yes it does mitch has already suggested to me an idea to improve that situation that we think we can implement well in advance of the completion of this that's what I thought so that's what we're hoping for it was a very good idea I mean I throw something else out that perhaps could be a good idea I noticed that at the Museum of Fine Arts they have a wonderful covered parking that is taken care of by solar panels and I just wonder because we don't have any covered parking at the airport if there would be an opportunity to work with a solar company to come up with some solar covered parking because as you know in July it gets pretty hot out there a few cars parked out there and it's not covered so just thinking we want to suggest some ideas like that perhaps yes ma'am since this is a the planning stage of it in the design and planning those types of items can't be considered will certainly ask them to

[1:10:28] consider those items as well do I have questions from Council Harry do you have a question comment guy would you go back to that last come back right there I want to make sure that we we really emphasize the airport water and wastewater stuff because really and that pitar part of the community unless we have those two things we're never going to develop that out there so this is a very very big part of that whole development is to make sure that we know how we're going to get water how we're going to dispose the water all of those types of things so hopefully this master plan will then detail that force yes sir and it's actually the overall water and sewer for that area is being studied and that sort of thing this is a duplication really because we already have passed the study that Allison is responsible for Allison you might want to come out here as well as now this master plan so hopefully they would overlap and and support the same game plan on it and so Allison come up but Billy did you want to go ahead and ask a question why Austin's coming up well my question was on that item number four like Harry because I don't think much is feasible unless we're able to do that but I noticed in the line item cost of doing this that I think it was going to cost thirteen thousand dollars in that line item to evaluate the water and wastewater treatment plant and whether or not the current ones could be you know brought back on line and I know I've heard from somebody before that it was cost prohibitive to bring those current facilities back on line that it would just cost too much so I'm glad the mayor asked Alison to come up because I'd like her thoughts on that and do we want to you know put $13,000 into something that we already know is going

[1:12:30] to be cost prohibitive and need to look at something else which you know my comments last question so we've had a discussion with cosa DC relative to this study while they do seem to overlap really they are more specialized in different areas so the water and wastewater evaluations associated with this plan will be specific to that site layout to all that undeveloped area and be able to really I guess evaluate what kind of businesses are going to go go there and then what kind of impact did those have to the sewer system the study that we have currently going on is really evaluating the existing system and a lot further downstream so the entire area of like now is worthy and all those lift stations that ultimate lead to the bentwood area but really the evaluations that this consultant will be doing can plug into ours and be able to enhance our study too so I think they will work together really well but this one is more specialized to the development and whereas we are not looking at individual Lots and what kind of businesses could go there what kind of loading those would have on the water and sewer system so really I think we need both of them to kind of to be used together so Alison are you saying that it is feasible that we might be able to use existing treatment plants out there and water system I think that that it'll be evaluated with the cost of upsizing those lines that we have going across the lake and near the bridge there it may be more economical to redo the plant than it is to upsize four miles of pipe going down to where we eventually out fall into the gravity system but those are the type of things I think that the two plans can kind of give us the cost

[1:14:34] benefit of both of them so both of them will be expensive either way though thank you but necessary I have further questions from Council questions anything all right with that I would entertain a motion I'd move approval of ratifying the resolution brought to us by the city of San Angelo Development Corporation secondary public comment there's no public comment we will take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes 7 0 item ii think i'm on item ii yep item ii is consider ratifying the resolution authorizing the use of cells and use tax funds in an amount not to exceed forty six thousand four hundred thirty-five dollars to provide an economic development incentive to US Customs and Border Protection air and marine operations with participation by the city for project authorized under the Texas Economic Development Corporation guy you're on again this is phase two of incentives for the US Customs and Border Protection air and marine operations they currently lease a building at 80 to ten hanger Road 60 employees will be retained with this incentive and up to sixty additional employees at an average salary of a hundred and twenty thousand dollars per year would be added as a result of this the incentive is for a permanent assignment of a UAV operations at Mathis field they're being moved from Corpus Christi this requires EDA with the city of San Angelo Airport economic development agreement with the city of San Angelo Airport the project area is shown in the

[1:16:41] areas a grassy area and what we'd be doing is studying that area engine this is an engineering study and planning area what's underneath that what it would require to pave that particular area for the towers that are placed in that area and these are for the drone operations these are what the towers look like there are some existing ones out there at this particular time but with the increased capacity that would be needed there be additional towers that would be placed in there the elements in the plan there's a geotechnical investigation engineering topographic survey foundation design [Music] this is an optional item tower design if requested powers are the designs of not likely that would be requested this brings it to 90% design submitted which includes the geotechnical survey and the structural $15,000 100% designs the middle $5,000 bidding support if requested which may not be in construction phase services also for requested the total for the study is forty six thousand four hundred and thirty five dollars I think it sounds like a great project from my perspective do I have questions or comments from City Council I just have one question guy where can I get an application for one of those hundred had you been raised in the new generation is your parents told you don't play with those video games these are these pilots that's where a lot of them initially got their training for this and then went on to become pilots for this so they are highly specialized but they are great

[1:18:44] great jobs sounds like a great project I agree man well let's go get in line I know do I have Harry move to approve is presented second there I want to emphasize this is just design yes that we hope to get from this plan suitable for bidding and there'll be more money needed for completion of these activities even further increase their operations correct just to get to the extra 60 employees yeah all right so with no public comment we will take a vote all in favor any opposed motion passes 7 0 item F consider ratifying a resolution by cosa DC make an application to the City Council for approval of second amendment to the Articles of Incorporation providing for term limits of its board members once again guy you're on earlier articles of incorporation had this particular item would be deleted is that each director shall hold office for a term of two years unless sooner removed or resigned each director including the initial director shall be eligible for reappointment a director may be removed from office by majority vote of the City Council in any time without cause so what we're recommending is to change that particular article in the spirit of limiting the terms our local government code specifies two-year terms and then so basically what we're saying is that each director shall hold office for a term of two years and less suna removed or resigned from and after September 4 2018 no director shall serve more than three consecutive two-year terms for the purposes of this section the City Council for the city of st. Angelo shall have authority to make future appointments to the board for terms less than two years in a manner that will

[1:20:48] stagger board member terms a director may be removed from office by majority vote of the City Council at any time without costs so this continues that spirit of term limitation and also in keeping with the local government code and it allows the terms to be staggered so that the board doesn't all terms don't all expire at one time I had Tommy this is essentially start all the current members terms over as if they were brand-new so they each gotten but but with staggering zuv each of them have two year terms maximum three three terms or there are some members that were appointed to fill unexpired terms and so in that process we would then make the appointments at different time in order to stagger stagger those terms Ryan I think you had a comment yes on the 18th we have the reading of chapter 2 which will speak to some of this as well and then will be coming forward to get the staggering of those terms Harry I just want to remind people that when we talked about this a few council meetings are poor before that I said that I think this should be the standard for all boards and commissions and I'd like to try to make sure that we go forward with that that is what we're bringing the first reading of on the 18th is to kind of unify board terms and term limits and as much as possible some have some specifics statutes that they have to go under but we're trying to unify them as much as possible the question a minute ago was so effective after passing today that means that everyone would be considered day one in their position or two years or three years or how do we determine do we just start counting today we have several that are in

[1:22:51] unexpired terms that we'll need an appointment to their first nobody is in nobody but one is in their second term so everybody's in either their first term or unexpired except for one position so again when we do the first reading I think we can we can talk about it more and then we will be bringing the appointments for well I just like to point out this item is just for permission to modify the Articles of Incorporation so this doesn't have any legal effect as far as what they're actually doing within their specific terms this is just allowing you guys to move forward with those changes that we want to make okay thank you do I have further questions comments do I have a motion with that is there any public comment no public comment we will take a vote all in favor say aye aye any opposed motion passes 7 0 thank you we're gonna take a 10-minute break way to go man we will move on to item G which is discussion and consideration of matters related to the fiscal year 2018 2019 operating budget including one first public hearing an introduction of an ordinance of the CSUN Angela approving and adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1 2018 and ending September 30 of 2019 this budget will raise more property taxes in last year's budget by six hundred twenty six thousand five hundred forty six dollars or 1.6 seven percent and of that amount three hundred eighty three thousand four and fourteen is tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll and to conduct a separate record vote to ratify the property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget and place the adoption of

[1:24:53] this tax rate on the agenda for the September 7 September 18 2018 regular meeting of the City Council as an action item Tina good morning mayor council mr. Valenzuela we have for you today for consideration the first public hearing and introduction of the budget ordinance for the fiscal year 2019 budget as well as conducting a separate record vote try to ratify the property tax revenue increase so the proposed budget draft that we have brought for you today includes the discussion items that we had in the budget workshop which included salary adjustments including the police pay plan the fire compression issues and the performance-based raises for the general employees it also includes an amount that we set aside for health insurance as well as the additional five police officers so first off we wanted to let you know that I think you'll recall that Lisa Morley let us know at the last meeting that there would be some adjustment to the health insurance cost increase and so these numbers are a better estimate of what we expect those to come in at so that would be a hundred and nineteen thousand dollars if the city bears the whole cause increase if we split it between the city and the employees that would be a $95,000 cost to the city and then of course if the employee bears the entire burden then there would be zero cost to the city if you'll recall we did have set aside an amount just over one hundred sixty-six thousand dollars and and at that time we had decided that we would split the cost between the city and and the employee but we are seeing the cost come in much lower obviously and so we wanted to give you the opportunity to discuss and and give us direction for that amount lisa.marta you want to come up a minute so we could ask a question about how much money per employee the city currently spends morning council all right presently the

[1:27:03] city pays four hundred ninety six dollars per month per employee and in the option number one that rate would go to five hundred and fifteen dollars and seventeen cents so on the current four nine four hundred ninety six per month per employee times twelve months so that total number per year for the budget is how much per person sober six something six thousand one hundred if you somehow just do that calculation real quick for me 58 92 so currently the city pays five thousand eight hundred ninety two dollars per year per employee right so if we went for option two the two point nine percent increase to employ two point nine percent increase what is that dollar amount for the employer it would be five hundred and eleven dollars and thirty six cents per month you know the increase maybe I didn't say it right or maybe I didn't understand the answer so right now if we split the cost of the increase of the premium what is the cost to the employee and what is the cost of the city of San Angelo the cost to the employee will vary by tier whichever one they're enrolled in and it varies from sixty cents at the low end per month and 3136 at the high end the other thing that we discussed at the last meeting that I was asked the last meeting was how many people would be affected with a net negative increase in

[1:29:09] a paycheck with as a result of this increase and I went back and looked at the numbers because we're going to be doing evaluations for the merit increases we have a hundred and nineteen new employees that will not get married increases so they would see an increase or a net negative on their check the hundred and thirty fire employees that are now not going to receive an increase they would also see a negative on their check and then we have eleven new police officers that would also so that's a total of 260 employees that would see a net negative depending on what tier they're in yes last I'm gonna make sure I heard what Tina said so Tina may be you may want to step up make sure I heard what you said we had agreed last week to a hundred and roughly one hundred and sixty seven thousand hundred sixty-six thousand and change for splitting with the employees but now we're looking at to cover the entire cost of the health insurance we'd be looking at a hundred and twenty so we still looking at what we did last week would still be in essence in the black by forty seven thousand forty six thousand dollars okay so as somebody that studied numbers for a number of years let me let me just make a comment here the difference between proposal two and proposal one is twenty four thousand five hundred and sixty two dollars that is point zero three three percent of the entire budget so we're really looking at a small amount even though it's twenty-five thousand dollars it's still a small amount over the entire 75 million dollar budget

[1:31:13] point zero three three percent so it's really minuscule compared to total seventy five million the question mark is what does the total employee cost because you're talking about the increase you're not talking about the percent to the totals out of budget in terms of what the total health insurance cost the city so just to be clear correct but we're talking about these two hundred and some-odd employees that we'll end up with with no increases this year because they're not getting an increase in pay and they're gonna have to pay for additional health care cost so I mean I'm I mean I'm in favor of covering the entire cost of one hundred and nineteen thousand eight hundred fifty four dollars since we'd already agreed last week to say we're gonna we're gonna pay 166 167 thousand so I'm in favor of covering the entire increase I don't have any sorry did you have a question or comment Billy I just wanted to confirm something that Lisa said because either people have not the new police officers and you know they're among 260 employees that would show a negative impact on their paycheck and then one other question that 31:36 on the high end is that like employee and family what part is just an employee because we don't cover the cost of the family so we just need to understand the employee aspect of it not the entire family that was the range that I that I mentioned we have we have 522 employ 24 employees that are in the low plan

[1:33:18] single coverage and under second option that increases the 60 cents per month there's for 524 employees that would get 60 cents per month increase in their health insurance is that where do I understand that yes that's correct and there's you know we have four different tiers employee only employee plus spouse employed plus children and family and then we have a low plan a medium plan and a high plan so that's 12 different tiers and so the range goes from 60 to the 31:36 number we're really only talking about the employee aspect of it because we don't provide we don't covering the cost of the spouse and/or the family really just talking employee only so what their total increases for the family and the spouse doesn't concern us too so much but it impacts people yes just so we understand the cost that you're reflecting is employee only not the higher tiers of college in each of those tiers the city pays for the employee only yes that's why I'm saying right I said poorly but yeah yes that's my comment Lane did you have a comment Lucy Carrie you did you know we've talked about this you know I've talked about this personally in my heart I want to make sure that we're consistent how we do everything there is knowledge and there's things some of the wages these people make are not in in the boundary of what you would expect health care helps them but what is you know you realize is we pay 90 something and if they're healthcare at the same process and very few industries do that so I think the city of st. angel has done a

[1:35:20] good job with that I mean my heart's in since we've already covered 166 I'm Lynn with herring them I'd love to cover it all at just 119 where I see that but I think people need to understand there's a reason some of these people enjoy working the city San Angelo and their health care insurance is very nice a lot of companies don't do them is what you're saying so there are benefits do I have Lucy we can I'm for didn't like it's been stated that it was that it was going to be a hundred and sixty-six thousand dollars so it's a lot I mean it's less so I would I would like to see us be able to go ahead and give them that this increased because right now they pay sixteen dollars per month so we're just talking about this year's increase not what exists currently all right do you need a motion or what do we need to do here we just consensus or how do we move forward you could do it by consensus or you could go ahead and make them a motion that this part of it would be in the final version of the ordinance however you prefer all right so then I make a motion that for this 2018-19 budget that we will approve the 119 thousand 854 which means there's zero increase to the employee in any public comment that said we'll take a vote all in favor say aye okay any opposed motion passes in there if I may well we're on this slide I do want to point out that there will be obviously some savings there to the city we cannot approve a budget that is not balanced and so we cannot project

[1:37:22] revenue over expenditure by law so what we would propose to do with that savings that if you recall after last week's meeting we had about sixty eight hundred dollars in addition to this forty six thousand dollars for a total of 53 thousand fifty-two dollars we need to discuss options on what we want to do with that savings we could allocate it to something else we could decrease our sales tax revenue budget we could send it to equipment replacement wait and we know there's always needs there so just need to hear what your ideas and direction is I think I need to go back and put the reduction in the sales tax because what we did was we increase the sales tax previously to accommodate the expense er expenditures at this point in time is to take 250 3052 dollars and put back in in reducing the sales tax forecast which we had reduced from three percent to one point five percent so I'm not sure what percentage that gives us but that would be my recommendation so let me understand this so instead of going to the one point five percent reduction you're looking at doing something closer to the three percent reduction it'll be like one point four eight percent instead of one point five the original one and a half percent included an additional two ninety two hundred ninety thousand in that neighborhood and so it would reduce that number by the fifty three thousand with that ability do you want to make a comment first well my comment is are we just doing this one one line item at a time what if there are additional savings in other areas that we have to factor in to make sure we have a balanced budget we don't believe there will be any other savings from what we proposed to you budget workshop and so what you'll be approving today is that proposal that included you know the raises the police officers the pay plans and things like that but we can challenge any of those so to your question if you would like to

[1:39:26] hole up web sorry if you would like to hold off on this we certainly could move further into the budget discussion and come back and do this at the very end of this line of this item on the agenda if we do that because I thought I'd heard something that there was some reduction in other area of something we approved and so can we do that hold off making we all we have to discuss as far as the budget is concerned the rest of what we discussed is just telling you you know what the legal authorizations that are in the budget ordinance and so this is if you want to discuss any of that we can't because of what we said last time was we made some decisions for you to put into the budget projected a budget but there's certainly room to open up conversation on any of the items that we discussed last time they were we were told to say look at your budget based off of these items so we can open up and have as much discussion as you want well I do have a question and I certainly hope because I see chief Carter and chief Howard at the back I hope I'm not saying something out of line if I am I know they will correct me but I had a follow-up meeting with them and one of the things that was my understanding was the four hundred seventy seven thousand umber that we talked about last time had been reduced is that not true I would leave that to their budget analysts to come discuss with you how i did not have any part of that spreadsheet or the formulas and so I'd prefer he has more knowledge of that okay cuz and maybe that's where you know the ball was dropped that they didn't communicate that to you so I would not say I would not imply that the ball was dropped at all I think maybe that just information wasn't relate there may be some slight savings due to

[1:41:29] some of the formulas in there well that was kind of a negative phrase that I used and I apologize maybe we could hear from chief Carter is your budget gentleman here today I thought it saw him earlier so come forward Noland so say he's gonna come up and help me answer your question I appreciate it good morning good morning how are y'all we're good okay so when we started reevaluating the pay plan actually beginning the first steps of implementing the pay plan we started to notice that there was a slight savings from what we had initially budgeted for for the pay plan to what we realized his actuals when we reran the numbers the initial number proposed was 477 the number that we're seeing now is more in the neighborhood of four hundred and fifty six so we have a savings there of about 21,000 okay so the idea for the questions concerning that I don't because that's what he shared with me when I met with him last Thursday so does that not Tina factored into what we were just talking about on this reduction in the health it certainly could factor into the total budget as a whole of the proposed budget if we I guess what we could do is once we implement the pay plan because employees change over you know the course of as we're evaluating this and so whatever additional savings there are there you can direct us to just also decrease sales tax by that whatever that amount would be I'm throughout the budget year is well we would know on October 1 what employees are in place and as soon as we implement that new pay plan to make sure that we cover all of those expenses and then whatever is marginal there we could decrease sales tax by that amount I mean I the other thing Billy is those that are there October 1st might not be there December 31st and so what you're doing is you're projecting for an annual basis what

[1:43:31] those costs would be if you lose some at the higher end some of those savings would be realized and you might have got some at the and so the budget of course is our best projection of what we think is going to happen in the year there of course has said that it's four hundred seventy seven thousand eight hundred seventeen dollars but employees come and go as you know and that can always have an impact on the the budget right exactly and I understand that mer but the decisions we were making on the 477 those were just projections to correct oh I'm saying if we have an opportunity to approve something that's more accurate with the information that Nolan has at this point why wouldn't we do that rather than leave it at the 477 yeah no you're correct that's why we said we would open up the conversation so any additional information questions or challenges here's when we do it you know we keep talking about you know quota seventy some thousand dollar budget but if you put in perspective today with decisions that we make you're approving somewhere around a seventy four million dollar revenue but you're also approving almost seventy four million dollars in expenses so if you look at that you're going to be approving 147 four forty eight million dollars worth of revenue expenditures so every as I say every dollar counts and so now's our chance to ask the questions and if I may Billie we can certainly do that we can use Nolan's more updated numbers that's not a problem at all we would include that in the second reading of the budget ordinance that we will bring to you on September 18th and so you could approve it then what I see is number probably going down rather than that because if we have somebody on our payroll today and they leave then we likely are gonna bring somebody in at a lower salary not necessarily we could bring them in at a higher salary but if somebody retires you're making this it's likely that that number would go to your right yes and

[1:45:34] the mayor put it very well when she said that it is it's a budget and it's a fluid document and so we see that throughout the year and all of our departments you know we'll see salary savings and and so that's that's a good point there I think Billy you're on to your your experience our professional so you use you correctly identified that pattern but PD uses those savings through the year to pay for overtime to cover events because they are consistently in need of additional overtime dollars so at some point we want to draw that line in this development budget development process and allow those savings those that come from naturally accrue from turn over to go to fund the overtime burden that is sometimes created by the turnover total employee expense of which some of it is the additional 477 but some of us the regular employee expense they haven't been managing the operation and/or overtime so well really the 477 is the increase only well we aren't seen as a total salary budget for the police department this is just what we're proving today is simply the loyalty pay plan and steps what we don't know is what's the total employee salaries on the police budget this is just the increase right so those dollars in other words these dollars were approving today for example I think correct me when I'm wrong is that you told us the other day we have to approve the exact dollars because you live by the dollars not the percentages and so we approved for consideration today four hundred seventy seven thousand eight hundred seventeen dollars for the loyalty pay plan and steps those dollars are fluid so you're saying that if they only needed four to four hundred and fifty six thousand that they have the ability to take that

[1:47:38] savings of twenty one thousand and put it in another line item on their budget is that correct that would be correct yes ma'am okay thank you do I have that would that is a process that would we require an internal budget amendment though and so it would go through the city manager's office for a proof yeah we're talking about budgeting right now though for next year we can't adjust that amount to the number should be is only and not add a portion of the budget at this point that's correct I want to leave the rest of the budget alone the only thing when they were adjusting is this right here is the salary pipe a plan mayor so we're not actually yeah we're not actually moving around it's just gonna be this one because we're a pluming dollars a specific dollar amount yes for these royalty pay plan steps so to your point Billy are you asking if we need to now put into the budget proposal 2018 I mean 2019 2020 no 1819 I'm not jumping too far ahead am i okay are you asking that we change that line item for a loyalty pay and steps to be four hundred fifty six thousand what it is based on the projections that Nolan and the Chiefs have generated then I think that's what we should be using but I had another question as well Michael you said the savings that you know they see in any area they have the ability to move that to another area they don't have to return their savings into the general fund I talked about the police using turnover savings savings that came from turnover to help pay for the overtime cost that come from events and from additional hours that have to be worked when they have turnover that's what I talked about you're saying that that would be a budget amendment that would go to or not a budget amendment

[1:49:40] that would be a conversation that goes to the city manager and not something that can just happen exactly right all right so with that Billy are you asking that we have a motion to reduce the royalty pay planning steps to four hundred and fifty six thousand verses of four hundred seventy seven thousand eight hundred seventeen what it takes a motion to do you can make the notion motion now or when you pass the ordinance you could just include that in the which of the motion to approve the ordinance it might be a little cleaner rather than making a bunch of different motions to at least we deal with it and we can move on otherwise we've got to remember and recap everything we're talking about try most things down so again it's up to you if you want to take the motion now that's just to kind of clear it out of the cache I guess would be it's perfectly acceptable Brian will help us with a correct motion at the end I don't think we have too many other things that council needs to make a decision on right so Brian will help us with the correct motion what needs to be included I don't think you have to figure it all out now you just have to know what you want to do okay so we're not taking a motion is that right Billy or you want a motion well we don't have to do the motion right now just to make sure we're clear thank you all right do we have additional questions as it relates to any of the other items that we discussed at last budget workshop meeting Lucy I was just gonna ask on y'all in maybe no one can tell me or you can maybe I just wanted to make sure that I was that I know is the loyalty pay the same thing is longevity it means it can take its place I know that

[1:51:43] longevity is your the years and everything in the loyalties also kind of the same thing but is it gonna be the same I think that's a question for Miss Marley and she allows her to come up and answer that one no they are two different things they're two different they are two different things longevity pay comes through a state statute that civil service employees receive and the loyalty pay is an internal San Angelo plan and I don't say that in in fire they get loyalty and longevity as well as the police department their proposal so what just to be clear then so when we prove the 477 817 that is the loyalty pay but people could still get on top of that longevity paid absolutely yes Lisa the longevity is mandated by state statute is that what I heard yes and it's $4 per year per month it's $25 a year a year yeah $25 per year of service oh and let's get that right though we Tom per month $25 per month yes it's $25 for each year of service per month then they will Restorick so it comes out to 300 at the end 300 years yeah so when we look at the budget I think the question mark then is working Lisa in HR with the city manager the longevity pay and is already calculated into the budget numbers that have been presented in total to us and so there would be no additional increases to the proposed budget that's correct yes ma'am good question Lucy Lucy you have another question I can just slowly talk yes

[1:54:00] now does this include the civil service only it's this 300 or yes yes that is always civil service that's not correct thank you okay so with that we have we can move on to another aspect of the budget proposal do we have any questions or additional information needed as it related to the 2% for general employees and you want to define the general employee 2% again that is a specific dollar amount right so you live within the dollar amount as proposed and I'll get the sheet here in a minute meanwhile you want to just Lisa I'm sorry you might just want to take a front seat here you're the woman of the hour like it or not girl you're on Lucy might want to talk a minute because I forgot what question I was near um I'm telling you my nice notes and now came fine I was gonna ask whenever you have a person that is working for the city and let's say that they have this job description that says okay you can start at 25 and just pick a number and say they can just make at the end it's just 35 and let's say that they get their little raises along the way in the merit raises and everything and they get to that do they not get any more races what happens if an employee maxes out in their pay range

[1:56:05] a general employee that doesn't have steps they just increases are awarded and then they received the maximum of their their pay range at that point they receive a lump sum check whatever the if they were to get in this case a 2% on their evaluation and they're sitting at the maximum of the range we would calculate what the 2% of their range is and they would receive that in a lump sum check it would not be something they would receive over the year they'd get one check one time okay thank you it doesn't go to the base that's Chris a Lurie so answer if someone has when we talk about the four hundred eighteen thousand $104 which is basically what we're talking about that means that if it's a meet standard they get X if it's above expectations its X what about if you've been there less than a year do you qualify for a raise you you qualify for a raise as long as you have at least six months so any employee that was hired April 1st of this year would not be entitled to an evaluation and therefore no increase in salary we had 119 new employees that's correct so are they added those hundred in nineteen haven't been there longer than six months none of them those are all the ones that we've hired this is that gonna cap anywhere it's gonna be a cap for that what do you mean I can't say for instance the max like for the years in there in there in there are steps like there is a maximum step for each rank yes so what you're asking no I'm kind of like going say somebody's like they're like for 35 years or 40 years and do they still keep on in the steps or is there gonna be a cap on it well Lucy we probably need you to are you talking about sworn officers or civilians all right so the the way the step plan is

[1:58:12] set right now they will move as they receive three years of service they move from one step to the next so ultimately I guess if there was no movement everybody would be at the top step at some point over years you know every three years they're gonna move from like let's say a lieutenant there's two steps if they're at the first step now three years from now whatever their data hire is then they would move to the second step and then that would be wherever they would be capped now I would say my suggestion would be if you go with something like that ultimately in years from now you'll want to change those to the value of the steps because there will be no more steps for them to move to so you know in future years when you award so much for their evaluations or two percent whatever it is you put that to those step rates that's what you would need to do you know one of the items that would seem to impact our police chief as it relates to longevity or Lord say loyalty pay I think is that because we elect a police officer unlike the chief chief done where they're hired they have the ability to accumulate more loyalty pay because they are a hard employee not an elected employee and so that can have in a short term long term and impact on what a chief of police has the ability to make because they can turnover of every four years unlike generally chief Dunn would not be turning over well part of that is true yes the the police chief also has a pay range just like the fire chief does those ranges are equal and so they are where they are in their range based on their performance or based on whatever loyalty or longevity that they receive so you know we've tried to always keep the two chief positions in the same pay

[2:00:16] grade and range but certainly when there's an election there the salary would be negotiated at that point so it would have to be within that pay range that we have for the police chief position do I have further questions for Lisa so I don't have to bring her back up again my apologies but it is good exercise up and down up and down absolutely I just have a question do we have loyalty pay in other parts of the organization other than the fire department and the police department no we do not if somebody thinks they're getting loyalty pay what might they be thinking of you know outside of a merit increase dreaming yeah I would say that's the dream I I don't I do not know what they could be talking about they there are certain departments like in water where we pay for certification we also now in the water department they've just implemented something that I guess you might be able to call it loyalty although it's really not that it's it's because we were losing people to the oil field we were trying to generate those salaries to be a little bit higher but loyalty pay is not something that we offer anywhere outside of civil service so whatever you just mentioned that we enacted within the water department can you just share with us a little bit about what that involves I mean you know if we're trying to give employees a financial incentive to you know to retain them is it real complex and I need to give you a call and schedule an appointment and I can do that well that's fine we have it's different percentages for different licenses if they hold there's four different certifications that they can hold in those water positions and so it's a B C and D and we just gave 2% per license to try to keep them here and then there was

[2:02:20] another one that was a 5% increase in loan that was a 10% increase based on different criteria that they had to have so many years in that department and certain licenses influences in the building he might come dispensers coming forward as we speak okay when he lands over street water utilities assistant director morning counsel what we actually implemented in the in the water department is we were seeing several of our departments that had eight to 12 vacancies we were having trouble getting employees keeping employees and so all along the city has actually had license pay incentives for the water department that allows them to every license they receive in terms of the state water and wastewater licenses they got a 5% ad pay for those what we did was we actually restructured those positions so that way once you had a couple licenses you could actually move into a second category of your position without changing your grade and then it added another 2% on to that pay and so essentially what happened is if you had to water licenses or a water and a sewer license had been in that department and had the the background and the information necessary to work on our system then we actually then made a position a B C and D within each of those other divisions and so it actually incentivized by basically encouraging them to get their licenses continuing to get their licenses but also to they knew that if they stayed with the city and kept that that skill set here in the city that they would actually have a slight increase without changing their position was it in effect implementing steps within I know it's not a step it's just basically it's medications it's a motivational if I understood you say you use a job level it's a job level ten and within that job level you have a job description for people that meet the

[2:04:26] criteria in that job level ten so now what if I understood what you said is that in creating an incentive you can get one two three maybe four certifications right so if someone has only two certifications versus four certifications but they're all in job level ten wouldn't that have added two steps within that job level ten what we actually did I'll just I'll just use the basic entry level person of a maintenance person what we did is as an entry level maintenance person you come in with your flat salary if you go in you get a water license and a sewer license the beginning of each of those license essentially each of those you'll get five percent so your pay will increase as an ad pay your base salary stays the same you increase as an ad pay up to ten percent then if you have been with the city and and worked in that department and that skill set and had that knowledge specific to the water and utility department and you stayed there for three years then you could actually then from being just the standard mechanic or the maintenance worker you could actually then become a senior person and so what we did was we actually gave a small incentive to those people because what we were finding also too is that we were hiring individuals we were getting these licenses we were training them and get in there there CDLs and things like that and then as soon as they got those things they were moving on and so what that extra 2% was is it was basically almost like a my name promotion incentive still as a mechanic though there still is that basic maintenance worker and here I'm going to be following the money so I'm not sure if this is Lisa Tina are you Lance but if we're looking at making salary adjustments based on trying to retain

[2:06:31] people where did you find the money did I mean was it money you already had in your budget so you just kind of rock Peter to pay Paul or we we actually in looking at all the departments the the three division of the three divisions that this was specific to we had say for instance twelve vacant positions and what we chose to do was maybe hold back a couple of those positions in order to fund the other salaries and so we knew that okay we may be two people short in the grand scheme of things but having ten people versus not having twelve people is is how we chose to go about it and so it was all within the budget and within the payroll of those specific divisions that they looked at you know reducing the staff to fund those things but but there again they were willing it was it was since we've done that two of those divisions had actually gone to fully staffed which is a good thing with it within just a matter of a few months and so they now have ten people there where they were twelve short and so you know we've seen the benefit already you would you have had any people within say the the group that you know you started to make the adjustments that would not have gotten anything actually there there there were a few individuals that either timewise at this point and or certification wise at this point have not progressed themselves and so we thought it was nice to do that exactly and we thought it was important to not just reward someone for for not progressing yourself so we saw to it that you have to show some initiative you have to show some incentive if you want to get those increases you can't just you know get on the bus and ride without you know showing some initiative and we actually then and we only implemented that in our three bottom levels of those positions once you actually get a promotion up into a management level we felt that that was your promotional potential and you're on a different track and it did

[2:08:33] not go through the entire division necessarily it was strictly on those lower income areas that we were having trouble keeping people in thank you so much you have answered all my questions thanks that's an that's an interesting question belly to that I think at some point the council may want to have a conversation about across the organization and we're talking we're talking about incentivizing longevity for for folks that really want to be here so that may be a conversation we entertain at some point in the future I think what Lance is saying to us though is that they're they really want to make sure that the employee looks for advancement through certification and time because you so if you study psychology it will tell you that the number one motivation for people is they like the company they like their boss pay is somewhere down the level of priorities so what we want to do is to make sure that we have an opportunity for employees to advance whether it's education or the next job and then you start over training new people you want to have an opportunity for people to grow and develop and that's a number one issue in terms of whoever you are wherever you're at in your life how do you intend to grow and develop so that's important value to the city of course Marilu certified employees versus a non certified the certified one has gone they have skin in the game they've actually gone and done a training and and and they know that in order for them to advance that's what it's going to take but in the byproduct of that is the city then actually benefits in we have a value system in place that's important yes Lantry talked in terms of incentivizing people to stay some of those licenses are required by the state for certain jobs aren't they yes we do have certain positions within the water plants and maintenance if you're working

[2:10:36] on the infrastructure some of those license are required we as a city have required it at certain crew leader positions which are leadership positions some of the plants do have certain levels of Licensing that have to be available or and/or on staff those specific things are compensated a little bit differently and their salaries reflect that requirement what we're actually doing and then these ones that we incentivized we're really the the more the boots on the ground guys that we're saying hey if you want to get more money here's how you can do it you can go take this class the city pays for the class go take your test the city pays for the test if you pass you get an incentive and what we're saying is if you just continue to show that initiative whether it's a 1 class 3 class whatever the requirement is you know we want to to grow our staff and my point is certain work can't be done without those licenses correct state requires licenses for certain types of water production and repair work yes that's correct those licenses are as important as other licenses that we sometimes talk about do I have further questions from Council Thank You Lance Lance thank you good job alright so this one's for Lisa I guess we call this preseason football argument you know you you've lost your opportunity how many employees how many open positions do we have right now Lisa how many open positions do we have I know Rick's got some in his department Shane's got close to 20 across the city right now I looked at it last week I want to say there was a total of 60 somewhat decisions across all the departments your opinion do you think those because we aren't matching what the markets doing around here I mean it's really we can't keep up with what they can get somewhere else some of them

[2:12:38] are people who have moved on to bigger and better jobs right and that's what you want to have you know you have to understand that the city of San Angelo is a small city people want to grow and develop in their careers so very often the way you grow and develop is to move to a better position in another city so some of them are just what happens in life for every major corporation every business in America I have a bigger opportunity I'm going to take it so it's not just all about not being able to hire people I mean it's right some of them are new positions open how long are some of them and Street and bridge open longer than others but some of its the natural process of what happens in a business Lisa maybe 60 70 that's what we're saying that may be a little bit high I'm including all of the temporary seasonals and things that we're trying to fill but you know police has one position vacant on their list right now so does fire water had a bunch I mean there's yeah I mean it's all over street and bridge has a bunch so sometimes it's salary related it depends on the grade of the job you know with the higher level jobs the mayor's right those people do go to other cities the lower rank jobs they go to the oilfield or they go wherever they can get the most money so you'd have to look at our listing every week to see what the factor is that created those vacancies okay all right with that then Tina you want to come forward what I'm gonna say this out loud and I please correct me because my notes probably aren't a hundred percent correct but what we have decided today is that we're going to reduce we're going to take $21,000 out of the police department we have fifty three thousand dollars it came from insurance for a total of seventy four thousand fifty two dollars

[2:14:42] so what I believe were trying to do is where before we had reduced the revenue from a 3% decrease to one point five percent decrease so we're going to which was two hundred ninety thousand dollars so we're going to reduce that two hundred ninety thousand dollars by seventy four thousand and fifty two cent seventy four thousand and fifty two which would mean that that sales tax dollar amount would would be two hundred sixteen thousand nine hundred forty eight so we would be reducing the one point five or in yeah to a different number based off of what I just said that's correct Mara and I would say that that's an estimate right there because I just want to make sure that we get the exact number from Nolan so so with the police department and use that amount versus just the rounded number of I think twenty six thousand dollars but yes it was twenty one thousand twenty okay twenty one thousand but I do want to get that exact number and include that in addition to the fifty three thousand $52 set you mentioned and I have a motion that will accomplish all of that whenever you're ready I'm ready okay motion to approve the ordinance with the exception of reducing the loyalty pay plan for the police department and applying that reduction and the reduction from the estimated health insurance contribution to likewise reduce the sales tax forecast that sounds exactly like what I just said read my mind okay with that said that is a motion do I have a second second is there any further public comment with no further comment would counsel please vote all in favor aye are there any opposed motion passes 7 0 Tina you have your direction I do just want to quickly remind you of what you're authorizing within the budget ordinance it authorizes aren't you said are you gonna repeat what he just said other than the actual budget you're approving some language in there

[2:16:44] that I just want to make sure that you're aware of other it authorizes the employee compensation schedules as far as grades and pay ranges it provides obviously for the appropriations of fun so it's what we've been discussing it reserves the authority to the City Council to to authorize budget amendments and then it provides for laps of all unencumbered run obligated funds from the prior fiscal year and a carryover of all appropriations of encumbered obligated or restricted funds with that we'll have to discuss it because I don't think we knew we voted on that that's why I wanted to bring it to your attention so we Brian you want comment on that because it provides some explanation the following provides for a lapse of all unencumbered or unobligated funds for prior fiscal year and for carryover of all appropriations I've encumbered obligated or restricted funds tell us what the link is none of us know yeah let me explain what that means so the unencumbered or unobligated funds that basically what that saying is that anything that hasn't been spent or encumbered or obligated priority year-end will fall to the fund balance of each of the funds and then the carryover all appropriations of encumbered obligated or restricted funds those are the things that we carry over every year at year-end so say you have a contract for service and it's already been encumbered because you know that you're going to have to pay for that contract then at year-end we go ahead and carry that over into the next fiscal year because you have to complete the payment for the contract is that then what is a 2017-18 number that's going to move forward into fund balance we won't know that until the end of the year projection is based off at the Bluebook I can't project that right now without having the last two months in the carry overs I'm ready to go but we when we do do the carryover process I'm all of those that are not already encumbered obligated or restricted are brought to City Council for a request for carryover when would that be Tina if some requests for carryover

[2:18:45] was brought to the council when how we actually try to bring that in December so that means that you have all final bills issues whatever and the fiscal 1718 budget complete oh you're sick in your head yes yes by then the payments will have gone through the accounts payable process and she'll know what remains that needs to be carried over and what doesn't doesn't need additional authorization to carry over okay any further questions on this item as it relates also to the reserves go back please it goes back to the reserves unto city council authority to transfer appropriations budgeted ratifying transfers of appropriations in 2017 18 fiscal year and amending the budget ordinance accordingly so that's basically saying that you have an authority level when it comes to budget amendments and so we bring that when it gets to that Authority level we bring it back to City Council for approval of amending the budget over anything not budgeted in 2017-18 and/or the new upcoming budget of 1819 okay so it reserves to the City Council the power to amend or make changes in the budget for municipal purposes obviously and it gives authority to the city manager or his designee to make certain adjustments from time to time in or between budget allocations it authorizes the city manager or his designee to apply for and accept certain grants and execute any related documents and it provides for filing of the budget any questions on that side bill they you have a question Tina on bullet number two could you give me an example of that please yes when we have salary savings in a certain fund and which overtime right the police overtime that we discussed earlier is a good example of that so when they have savings in their salary accounts they

[2:20:47] can then use that money and send a budget amendment through the finance department and eventually to the city city manager and he would approve using the salary savings to cover something like police over time or any other department for that matter does that hurt the police department that for example I'm assuming when they need to spend over time money and they need to because Knicks weeks a crazy week and they weren't realized that seventeen events were being planned and so they didn't know they were going to need overtime and now they've got to wait to come to City Council to ask for approval of the overtime although they this puts the authority at the city manager level and so Daniels able to approve something like that yes ma'am so the process would be prolonged if we actually went that around so it's within the same fund anyway within the same department so that authority if given to me I can do that and make sure that it doesn't slow the progress down okay other questions on this side are there questions okay so we need to conduct a separate vote to ratify the property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget and place the adoption of this tax on the agenda for the September 18 2018 regular meeting of the City Council as an action item and we'll need to take that as a record vote so the motion the second and then well is that item H on the agenda that's G 2 V 2 okay all right so we're going to take a vote each individual City Council member please ratify that you approve we need the motion in this numbers okay I'd make the motion mayor that we ratify the property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget second any public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor hi council member Hobart will you actually

[2:22:53] read what's on the screen as part of your motion and let's read bring it that ii ratify the property I move that we ratify the property tax revenue increase reflected in the budget and place the adoption of this tax on the agenda for the September 18th 2018 regular meeting of the City council as an action item hurry would you second that I will second that okay with that any public comment with no public comment we will take a vote all in favor let's do it as a record so let's go do I need to restate that no just SMD one and how you've okay single-member district one I vote aye member district two I vote aye district three I vote aye mayor I vote aye [Music] go member district five I vote aye single-member district six I vote aye Ryan have we concluded that the good news is we get a move on to H okay H is considered second public hearing and introduction of an ordinance levying property taxes for the city of San Angelo for the 2018 tax year and ordinance fixing and leavening ad valorem taxes for the current tax year for use and support the municipal government of the city of San Angelo Texas for the 2018 2019 budget year providing for the assessment and collection there of providing when the tax shall become due providing when the tax shall become delinquent providing for exemptions providing for severability providing for publication on the city operated website and providing for an effective date okay Thank You mayor as you'll recall we had the first public hearing for the introduction of the property tax ordinance at our last meeting and so this is just the second public hearing for that and to allow the public to comment or make their voice heard our proposed rate of course is remaining the same at point seven seven six per 100 dollars evaluation and here's just how it's broken out between maintenance and

[2:24:55] operations and our debt service portions is that debt service number a different number than know may be used in the past okay with that do I have a motion you have to do the mayor can we do this one as a record vote as well it can just be a motion to approve it as presented okay do I have a motion to approve a second we probably need to ask for public comments ready to do right now okay any public comment no public comment we will take a individual vote starting with Tommy remember district 1 I vote aye district 3 I vote aye mayor votes I single-member district 4 I vote on single-member district 5 I vote I single-member district 6 I vote aye and finally for me okay so now item I first public hearing an introduction of an ordinance amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1 2017 and ending September 30 2018 for equipment replacement grants reimbursed expenses and obligations okay Thank You mayor so this is a budget amendment that we're bringing to you for consideration and approval we are proposing to increase our sales tax revenue revenue budget for the current fiscal year by this $1,080,000 as you'll recall we're projecting to end the year at a surplus of 1.4 million dollars this one I'm going to take a little time to explain we are planning to use that additional revenue to fund equipment replacement we have an opportunity to see savings with our police with replacing our police vehicles and so if you have any questions on that part of it I would defer to Ryan Kramer but as far as allocating the sales tax revenue I want to explain this is 424 vehicles and so

[2:27:00] 12 of these vehicles would be what we would normally purchase in the next fiscal year and the other 12 we would be allocating additional funds for the current fiscal year and so we're a locating the entire mountain this year and what we would propose to do so that we use next year's allocation that we would have appropriated we would propose to allocate that money now and then next year not make that transfer into equipment replacement from the general fund thereby allowing that half of that $540,000 to fall to the fund balance in the next fiscal year did I explain that yes but okay so let me just make sure so we have a million foreign and additional sales tax revenue yes man we're projecting of the million for we are asking to spend four hundred and eighty eight thousand dollars for police cars it's it's actually a million eighty thousand but again half of that would have been next year's allocation that we won't spend in the next year okay so with that then the difference between the million four and the million eighty goes where it will fall to fund balance if we don't budget for it we have already used $125,000 dollars of that though to fund part of the Contra river bank stabilization project so we had to vote on that we we have in a previous meeting that was taken we know first brought that one forward so is taken earlier this year okay so other projects that we could possibly take a look at that's not including in here but that's what they were asking if why we would be today asking to put that into fund balance if at Nix meeting we're gonna talk about spending it so I'm just asking why we're go and find balance right now when we have potential okay things we're going to approve September 18th for expended I'm sorry let me clarify that won't fall to fund balance until September 30th at

[2:29:02] year-end that's the point at which any of that monies would fall to fund balance okay so all you're asking is on September 30th the revenue excess revenue on sales tax minus the expenditures that we approve at September 18th would go to fund balance is that what you're asking right now I'm just asking to use a $1,080,000 of that surplus revenue to fund the purchase of the police vehicles okay everyone clear on that so with that said is there a motion there's a couple more amendments that we needed to bring to you as well so um that there has been some lean revenue that's been received a $55,000 that needs to be used to cover demolition acts for the dangerous buildings program wit grant funds that they were sent an increase to their allowance for this year of $29,000 and they want to use that to fund some technology capital hotel occupancy tax and we did we are going to have to increase our revenue budget and the reason for that is that forty eight percent and the five percent and so when we budget our original revenue budget we also budget balance so that our expense budget is the same so when we see increased revenues then that is obviously going to increase our transfers out civic events into the San Angel Cultural Affairs Council as well and so we're just increasing our revenue to what we project for it to be flat of ear and so that we can fund those other two initiatives let me make sure we're clear on what we're talking about because civic events gets 48% because at a previous meeting we talked about setting budgets and not a percentage and so the question mark for me today does counsel have the ability to say we want to leave the original dollar amount that was budgeted as it is and to take this additional revenue because of hotel occupancy tax and have counsel decide on how they want to spend it say that with

[2:31:08] the culture affairs council that's part of a contract and an agreement with them that they will receive 5% of whatever those revenues are as far as the city department would defer to the city attorney to tell us whether we could make that change or not since that last meeting we've looked to see if we could find any sort of adopted policy or ordinance that addresses that in there is none so we're assuming that it is just a policy of counsel that was set back some time that can be changed by council can that be changed within this current year's budget or that be something we would need to change going forward I would recommend changing it going forward with the new budget if we're going to make the change okay with that said is there anything further on this one before I ask for emotions myself I have something just from my understanding so we got more hotel occupancy tax than we expected and because of the we the current access is divvied up this is what we have 48 percent going to civic events and the five percent going to cultural affairs I wouldn't say it's actually the excess of why we're doing it up but because this is the way that we budget for the Civic events and the agreement that we have with the Cultural Affairs Council that's why we have to allocate that additional revenue out to those two sources because they're based on percentages rather than a flat dollar amount okay and so I understand what the mayor's question is but so right now though three hundred and seventeen thousand eight hundred and forty-one dollars would be added to the Civic events budget for the 2017-2018 yeah the way that I presented to you right now it'll actually be a transfer out of the hotel occupancy tax fund and it will transfer into the Civic events fund but we are not budgeting for that revenue or expense at this time and so at your end it would fall to fund balance so they don't really get this would go there but they don't have the spending

[2:33:10] authorization for it has to be brought back to Council if they want to complete any projects or anything they want to do this money yes but the money that has already been approved they can use that yes just this additional revenues okay Tina's doing this because in in the budget it councils direction is allocate 48 percent and so she says revenues up so in order to comply with this direction I need this budget amendment no one's author authorizing any additional expenses we're just moving it from one account to one other tenants yes that's what it's moving to funds it's not approving expenditures on the previous slide on the liens that is the same you have the 55,000 that's the same thing it cannot be spent unless it comes back to the that is not that is not the same thing right here we've already received this these monies so we are budgeting for that revenue with an offsetting expense for the demolition so this one is not an approved you're asking to approve the expense unlike the others where we're asking for approval to move it from one fund to another what about the other one the wit grant and the technology capital because we're not in the presentation we're not you're not mentioning to us the difference between these are all transfers and approving so everything those trains are being a revenue and an expense here you're approving sales tax revenue increase in an offsetting expense for equipment replacement right now this current budget and the 2018 budget okay yes here you're approving revenue for liens and with the offsetting expense of demolition here you're approving revenue from the whit grant with the offsetting expense of technology capital and here you're improving you're approving revenue for hotel occupancy tax would the offsetting expense for that fund of

[2:35:12] the Civic events transfer out and the payment to the cultural affairs council no approval to spend money no approval you're approving to spend it out of the hotel occupancy tax fund but not out of the Civic events fund or the cultural affairs the culture Affairs Council they spend it as they see fit and they they come back to Council and update you on that it's a separate organization we all realize that but in the big picture the conversation that was just said we asked about that and it was said that they could not spend it without coming back to Council that's why this clarification is important we were referring to the Civic events fund when we said that because they would be required to come back to the City Council because before they can use those funds just just so that we that the citizens understand and this council up here understands that from the mayor's direction and I and I certainly support this we want to go back to a specific amount to both of these in individual organizations beginning fiscal year 9 team that means whatever we've got to do in the next couple of meetings we want to move that dress the contract with the Cultural Affairs Council will not have expired at that time so we may need to figure out how to make it happen that would require an amendment of some kinds of it to the agreement with them Billy Laine bill you yes all right with that said by me I'm sorry can we go back to the million eighty thousand dollars I just a tea right there I just want to make sure we're clear because we're looking at so tax revenues and the general equipment replacement we have

[2:37:14] another item that's coming up next Tina and it talks about those 24 additional units those vehicles at a total price of seven hundred thirty six thousand dollars I want to make sure we're clear on we want to make sure I'm very clear very clear on what this actually general equipment replacement yes and I think that'll be a question for Ryan Cramer Ryan what is the difference between that in this number there's other other items in there besides the police cars right good morning Council Ryan Cramer fleet services yes that's correct 1 million 80,000 is what we need to budget to build those cars including the vehicles approximately seven hundred thirty six thousand dollars will be expended to buy the vehicles themselves the remainder of that needs to be budgeted for the upfit equipment that we need to install in a light bars cages computers etc the difference between seven hundred thirty six thousand and a million eighty forty four thousand so three hundred forty four thousand dollars it will cost to take the vehicles purchased and to make a musical for the police department that's right questions okay move to approve as presented Ryan do we have to go through any of these line by line or just a motion to approve all of those is sufficient yes sorry we need individual counsel though so there's a motion a second public comment please no public comment we will take a vote all in favor say aye any nays motion passes 7 0 then item J is consider increasing award of rfb FS 0 1 - 1 8 patrol utility vehicles - Jim bass Ford San Angelo Texas in the amount of seven hundred thirty six thousand and eighty dollars for the purchase of 24 additional units and authorizing the city manager to execute any related

[2:39:17] documents morning again Ryan Kramer with fleet services this is fairly simple in nature we're requesting council to approve the increase of the award to Jim bass Ford for the purchase of these vehicles we have a currently contracted vendor which is defense forward for the purchase of patrol units we've already purchased 12 units with that previous award as awarded by Council we're asking to simply increase that award for the contract so that we can retain the pricing there by the amount of 24 vehicles I've certainly support the 24 by just I'm surprised in seven days we went from 12 to 24 I'm just was asking the the 12 units that we bought was back before New Year's even and that was for the 12 vehicles that were allocated for that fiscal year and so the 24 we're considering now are not only the 12 that we intend to purchase for next fiscal year fiscal year 19 but 12 additional units to help offset aged equipment and the potential to lose money because the price increases on those vehicles yes Harry thank you yes I take a look at this price escalation is this specific quote from Jim bass for this next model year fiscal year army 1920 19 or is this just an estimate or our contract with vendors like this entails that they notify us of any escalations within a certain time period the contract expiring this vendor did that they notified us that there would be an escalation based on the manufacturer in this case Ford increasing and changing the way they build those vehicles that is going to cause an increase in price and so therefore we're seeing this exact quote given to me by Jim bass Ford as the increase I haven't put it on a calculator that but that's more than 16

[2:41:20] percent that's that's way way way out there you know when you get that kind of price escalation shouldn't we be going out for bids from other organizations but I thought that if we made this buy before the 18th of September we maintained the contracted price so what we're proving today is not the increased price Harry if we make this purchase before the 18th of September we get the old thirty thousand six hundred seventy dollars correct that's exactly what racked the price okay with that said does counsel have further comments or questions on this with no further comments or questions do I have a motion lane moves to proven the second is by here by Tom e Hebert and I got it out 1975 Texas A&M thank you for the rain okay so there's a motion in a second and now I have an opportunity for public comment with that opportunity denied do we will move on to a vote all in favor say aye aye any opposed 7 0 thank you we will now move into closed session executive session under provision of government code title 5 open government ethics subtitle a open government chapter 5 5 1 Open Meetings subchapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings be open under the following sections a Section five five one point zero eight seven one to discuss their deliberate regarding commercial financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate stay or expand in or near the territory the governmental body and with

[2:43:23] which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations relating to med hab LLC item B section five five 1.07 to deliberations about real property regarding thirty West to wig and item C which is five five 107 one two consultation with attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas to sue disciplinarian Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter regarding item seven a curbside recycling discussion with that we will be closed for closed sections for about 45 minutes to an hour item nine follow-up an administrative issues a consider items discussed in an executive session if needed Harry yes I'd like to make a motion authorizing the city manager to negotiate a lease for the property located at thirty west to e all in favor any opposed motion passes seven zero item be considered proving the following board nomination design and historical review Commission clay Inc doll SMD one downtown development organization to an unexpired term ending September 2019 do I have a motion a second a public opinion with no public opinion a vote all in favor any opposed with none opposed motion passes seven zero item C announcements in consideration of future agenda items Harry I think you want something yes town hall meeting scheduled next Tuesday September 11th at Fort Scott Fort Concho school to discuss the proposed closure of a portion of Avenue D that portion that goes through the fort and will start at 5:30 that afternoon I know this last week I had a phone call about a mother and a child almost being run over on Avenue D it's a real serious

[2:45:30] health safety issue okay next Tuesday is the 11th which is a 911 the firefighters Association working with the fire department are actually sponsoring this year's 911 memorial which will be held at the 9/11 memorial site at 10:00 a.m. in the morning so we definitely want to welcome all the invite all the public to be there of course city council members I just want to make sure that's out there so again that's next Tuesday 911 at the 9/11 memorial at 10 o'clock in the morning with that said are there any further announcements with no further announcements may I have a motion for adjournment wait turn in a second with any public opinion with no public opinion may we not oppose meeting adjourn at well 44 on September the 4th

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=FT9Z3IRwIJQ