San Angelo City Council 10-3-17

[0:00:00] porter at 8:35 a.m. if i could remind everybody to please turn off your cell phones we would greatly appreciate it this morning we are going to have cat ro Walt come up and lead us in prayer thank you let us pray father God we thank you so much for your protection let us remember the horrific event that happened Sunday evening and let us remember the true spirit in which our country was founded father I ask that you guide and drag this country to regain its honor and its strength its patriotism and its love for you others we move forward through this through this week let us keep you ever in the forefront of our mind father as this meeting begins I ask that you give wisdom and direction to each of the council members in the mirror father we thank you that you are God and we are not father we just lift up our community and ask for your protection and we do this your son's name Jesus Christ amen we are now going to ask the Angelou Catholic school eighth graders to please come forward and lead us in the pledge --is please and before we start I would

[0:02:09] like each of you to introduce yourself so you want to start Dominique and tell him your name my praise and ruse Marisela had a meal hi my name is Rebecca Rangel the United States of America honored the Texas flag which allegiance to thee Texas [Applause] we have three proclamations today we're going to start off with with the Red Ribbon Week do we have Eric Sanchez here and several others fantastic alcohol is a primary factor in the four leading causes of death for young people ages 10 to 21 and almost 100,000 people die each year from alcohol-related causes some 15 million drinkers in the US are dependent on alcohol adolescents

[0:04:12] use alcohol more than tobacco or illicit drugs young people begin drinking a non on average at 13 years of age and young people who begin drinking before age 15 are four more times likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who begin drinking at age 21 and alcohol abuse is linked to as many as two-thirds of all sexual assaults and is a major factor in risky sexual behavior and contracting HIV sexually transmitted diseases therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim October 23 to 31 2017 as Red Ribbon Week incident in San Angelo Texas and call upon all in the city of San Angelo to support the alcohol and drug abuse Council for the council Valley for the concho Valley concho Valley cares and their efforts to increase awareness and to support those coping with addiction in our community Eric would you like to come speak up good morning we really appreciate this proclamation and bringing awareness to the issue of substance use disorders addiction and alcoholism this is an issue that's very detrimental to San Angelo and the concho Valley it's a very serious one our mission at the alcohol and drug abuse Council for the concho Valley is to save lives and create healthier communities and we take that very seriously unfortunately in San Angelo in the concho Valley lives are lost and you need only look in the paper to see that lives are lost lives are destroyed children are harmed and neglected and abused because of the side effects and consequences of substitutes disorders and it's very important that we bring attention to this issue very important that we partner together to work together to do it ATAC cannot unilaterally address this issue we need

[0:06:15] community partners we need the city we need everyone to join us in this and we thank you for this attention and this proclamation good morning my name is Rea Valadez with Adak we want to say thank you I'm just like Eric said to everyone in our community for helping us to recognize this time this month as Red Ribbon Week we just want to also say thank you to our community partners from there for space if you'll just wave your hand they're here this this morning they're here this morning we were able fortunate enough to partner with them this this month for some activities on the base and so we want to thank them for their partnership and we want to say thank you to all of you for being a part of the powerful prevention message whatever part you play in that or whatever role you may play in that message so again we want to say thank you for helping us to recognize this month [Applause] is Judy Sikes here good morning how are you today on Monday October the 2nd 2017 Habitat for Humanity of San Angelo joined with partners around the world to rededicate

[0:08:18] themselves in recognizing the basic right of everyone to have adequate shelter Habitat for Humanity world day 2017 joins together a single global network in communicating the message that every one of us deserves the opportunity for a better future we acknowledge that a decent place to live can remove barriers to opportunity health and success for growing families now and generations to come driven by the vision that everyone needs a decent place to live Habitat for Humanity began in 1976 as a grassroots effort on a community farm in southern Georgia the Christian housing organization has since grown to become a leading global nonprofit working in more than 1300 communities throughout the u.s. in more than 70 countries families and individuals in need of a hand-up partner with Habitat for Humanity to build or improve a place they can call home Habitat homeowners help build their own homes alongside volunteers and pay an affordable mortgage through financial support volunteering or adding a voice to support affordable housing everyone can help families achieve the strength stability and self-reliance they need to build better lives for themselves locally Habitat for Humanity of san angelo galilee Community Development Corporation and the city of San Angelo stand together to help ensure we can all provide affordable housing throughout our community through a shelter we empower therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor the city of San Angelo on behalf of the City Council I do hereby proclaim Monday October the 2nd 2017 as world Habitat day 2017 and affordable housing [Applause] marek enter and city councilmembers all of you thank you so much for helping us

[0:10:22] to celebrate World habitat day we really appreciate it we definitely envision a world where everybody has a decent affordable place to live we certainly envision that for our world and also for San Angelo but habitat is not the only organization that looks and supports and advocates for affordable housing we work closely with Galilee with Terry Shane or we work closely with the city of San Angelo with Bob solace we thank them for always being there as a partner for us knowing that there's there's not one of us alone who advocates for affordable housing we all do we all believe in it we believe that affordable housing when we build affordable housing we're building strength we're building stability for families we're building self-reliance and we do that through shelter so thank you so much for honoring us and celebrating with us today that's pretty good well you know the lack of affordable housing it's really a growing national problem but it's also here at San Angelo we have a problem here in San Angelo as well and it's going to take partners with all the stakeholders developers private sector nonprofits and of course a little bit of the city to come together to look for solutions and I think working together we'll be able to come up with the start taking steps towards solving the problem in the long run so thank you you know when you think about sign as loyal you think about community and that's what it's all about that's what our group works together but the city of San Angelo worked together and that's what makes us so great thank you [Applause] do we have anyone here for a small

[0:12:53] business Saturday we will read the proclamation the government of San Angelo Texas celebrates our local small business and the contributions they make to our local economy and community according to the United States Small Business Administration there are currently twenty eight point eight million small businesses in the United States they represent ninety nine point seven percent of all businesses with employees in the United States are responsible for sixty-three percent of net new jobs created over the past twenty years small businesses employ forty eight percent of the employees in the private sector in the United States on average thirty three percent of consumers holiday shopping will be done at small independently owned retailers and restaurants ninety one percent of all consumers believe that supporting small independently owned restaurants and bars is important seventy six percent of all consumers plan to go to one or more small businesses as part of their holiday shopping CIN Angeles supports our local businesses that create jobs boost our local economy and preserve our neighborhoods advocacy groups as well as public and private organizations across the country have endorsed the Saturday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday therefore I Brenda Gunther mayor the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the City Council I do hereby proclaim November 25th 2017 as Small Business Saturday and urged the residents of our community and communities across the country to some to support small businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year once again we want to remind everybody to support local shop local support our great community because it's your tax dollars to help us create the funds that we need to support the infrastructure that we so deserve in this community so when you go out to

[0:14:57] shop or you think about needing something please look locally first we need to grow local local thank you we will now have public comment issues or items that are not on the agenda may be 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 the discussed item be placed on a future agenda the council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items do we have anyone here today who would like to come forward and make any comment with no public comment we will now move in to the consent agenda I'm going to ask each of the council members if there's something that they would like to pull off of the consent agenda and I'll start with Billy yes mayor I would like to pull items F G and H F G and H yes nothing to fool Tommy no ma'am Tom nothing the pool area okay we will start with item F Billy I'm yes and I need a motion to approve the rest of it alright so with that said with exception of F G and H do I have a motion to

[0:17:03] accept the the rest of the consent agenda a second all in favor all right Billy F consider ratifying Cosa DC's resolution authorizing the use of sales and use tax in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for a project that entails acquisition from the city of San Angelo of a 17.5 8 acre parcel of real property fronting on Houston Hart expressway within an area bounded by Southwest Boulevard Sherwood way and Sunset Drive and a development agreement with the city pursuant to which the property will be improved for resale and commercial development as permitted under Chapter 505 of the Texas Development Corporation Act to promote and develop a new or expanded business enterprise that create or retain prop primary jobs or that provide facilities that enhance convention purposes and tourism yes the reason I asked for this was just for a little bit of informational overview for the citizens of San Angelo one of the things that the council one of our primary interest is economic development and this certainly the three that I pull certainly sounds like it would lend itself toward you know that development of economic development so mr. Pena if you don't mind just sharing an informational overview of item F I guess we have to take them one at a time yes ma'am good morning Council I am rolling pin yeah director of economic development items F and G are related they they really go hand in hand and and I think I can provide a good overview for you when the board approves a project they have to determine a project and the board makes that decision and that's what you have before you is a resolution ratifying the project this is a 17.5 eight acre parcel of land at the city

[0:19:10] owns that it is between Houston heart and Sherwood Way and the city back in March issued an RFP to solicit proposals for that property the Development Corporation and its board felt that we had an opportunity to take advantage of exploring the property for the potential of commercial or business development hence the creation of primary jobs and so we embarked on preparing an RFP that we submitted to the to the city and we were awarded that city council approve that a month a month or two later I don't remember the exact date but the we submitted a proposal to purchase the property for $25,000 but in addition to that is conducted due diligence and so in as part of that what you have the remaining of $75,000 in that's listed here is for the completion of environmental studies geotechnical studies the survey and related work closing cost and so forth and we do seek higher skilled higher growth potential type of companies that are higher paying positions item G so once item F is approved and that allows us to secure the engineering company that will help us conduct those studies so we want to determine whether we have some environmental issues and whether the land is developable and whether we can pursue the vision of turning that parcel into a commercial and business development project so with that I'd be glad to help answer any questions that you may have are the reasons to believe

[0:21:12] there's going to be environmental problems are we digging a hole that we can't dig out of we need to confirm they're part of the RFP provided some prior environmental studies that are outdated we believe based on what we saw from the RFP that all the requirements under tcq had been met for the piece of property but we need to confirm that so that we can ensure the potential developer or buyer or corporate headquarters to feel comfortable that we have updated information and that the land is developable do I have questioned from counsel further question Billy do you have for the questions no I don't okay do you want to make a motion to approve F yes I move that we approve item F on the agenda is there a second all in favor 7-0 then G do you want to further discuss G Billy do you have questions on it I know we said they were connected but are there further questions on G no I think mr. Pena did a good job of explaining that and helping us understand so I make a motion that we approve item G on the agenda second all in favor all right item H consider ratifying cos'è DC's resolution authorizing the use of cells and use tax funds in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide an economic development incentive to Detmar Logistics LLC for a project related to business enterprises that create or retain primary jobs as authorized for a type b corporation under local government code chapter 501 subchapter C this is a resolution that authorizes that the Bourdon has to make again determine the project to allow us

[0:23:15] to use the funds for the purpose of the creation of jobs and create an incentive proposal to the company it is an exciting project for us and I will tell you that the board has a policy that we want to move quickly with with projects so that there is no delay we do meet on a month-to-month basis we are in negotiations with the company now and in the process of developing a performance agreement I think that's important for the council to know and for the public to know that a performance agreement is just that they have to perform before they receive any incentives it is a company headquartered out of San Antonio I'm trying to convince them to move the headquarters to San Angelo and so we'll see if I make any headway with that but it is a transportation and logistics company of Frank San and they do specifically work in the Permian and Eagle Ford Shale although they transport all across the nation your resolution states that you know they'll create 120 jobs I will tell you that most of our analysis that we conduct goes to ten years and we are looking at about a hundred ninety five new jobs and a capital investment of five million I will also tell you that the project is dynamic right now it is it is moving and it's looking more to our favor so it may be that we'll have a larger capital investment than you see currently in the resolution and in the information that you've heard now so we're excited about about what's happening there our proposal is strictly for job creation we only want to incentive I for the first five years at 20 $500 per job and that's $300,000 in

[0:25:19] incentives and it does require the capital investment these are $75,000 average annual salaries so for us it is the type of jobs that we want to create higher paying jobs that will be located in our community so with that I would be glad to answer any questions I will tell you that the representatives or the company are sitting in the audience I do have Detmar logistics the president and and the owner and the manager here in the event that you want to ask them any questions I would love for them to come forward please when I was just the only caution I would I would state is that we are in negotiations so if we can just stay away from any of the details and unless you want to go into executive session but I would stay away from that because we are negotiating that right now okay I really like an opportunity for you just really state your name I think it's exciting to see new business opportunities but I also think it's it's important that we know the faces behind the conversation in the company of corporations because it's all about people at the end of the day absolutely my name is Matt Detmer I'm the president of debt more logistics thank you tell us a little bit about your background well um as forward as my background was the company's background those would work okay well I'm from San Antonio born and raised um graduated from Texas State University once I got out of school um I started this business my father who's back there we've kind of grown it's over the past five years and about we started with three strokes today we were at 187 we've grown about 300 percent over the past year mainly we moved to st. Angelo a

[0:27:24] year and six months ago we've grown substantially and we the community here has been great we did look at other places to move to however just the community that's here the help of the economic development committee um we do feel that San Angelo will be our home for the next ten years at least thank you any other questions from the council we'd love to meet your father [Music] he looks happy to be hanging up here he doesn't want to meet us we're good today when we started this company together and he was he's opportunity company to another level he's had a lot of success and done a really good job of growing the company and being a really good cheerleader for lack of a better word but after two years of working together the banks were impressed on how he was running the company and lend him the money to buy me out so since then I've just kind of been again at his plane to cheerleader so your leaders are necessary all great teams have won yes would you please come forward as well my name is Craig holes I am the safety and do team manager for Detmar I've been with Detmar now for going on about nine months just a little bit just in my little background of it and nine months ago in January we had 60 trucks and like matt said that we're up to 187 now on the safety aspect of things we that this right here is going to significantly help us get into a better place a bigger facility it's going to be a safer place for my workers to work on the d-o-t side also on that aspect so and I also would like to say one other thing I have worked hand-in-hand with mr. Pena and Miss Scott back there they have been absolutely incredible they have called

[0:29:27] me almost every day or called Matt to talk to us and make sure we have all the details I think I'll allow Shannon to she's only allowed to ask me five questions every time that's it but they have been absolutely terrific in this aspect so I do want to say that also I'm gonna thank them for helping us with this to getness the off the ground and getting it to where we can come in front of y'all so thank y'all very much do I have questions from City Council mr. Cole mr. Cole's his hometown guy he didn't mention that say again I have been in San Angelo since 1983 mr. Beeber know I've been part of his charge for many many years also my mom and dad been here my dad's a local businessman my mom's actually the former superintendent of the school district Joanne rice so we have I got lucky enough I was gone for a little bit of time but Matt got me back here got me back home and I'm very proud to be back home so this has been a great incredible opportunity for it for myself and I think this would be a great opportunity for our company Thank You mr. Coles are you like viewer central well we believe in growing local and supporting local so thank you for coming up and sharing a little bit of your background with us thank you are there any further questions on item age do I have a motion I just want to say I got way more than I thought I was gonna get when I asked mr. Pena to give us that informational overview so it's incredibly exciting to meet the owners of the business that we're looking forward to partnering oh I'm sorry I thought it was on it's always automatically on I'm but anyway so thank you thank you dad Mar for and lo when we

[0:31:32] look at the investment that we're about to make you know the citizens hold us accountable for that but I think this certainly is a good investment so mayor I make a motion that we approve item H all in favor aye motion approved there are just just one last thing I I'm glad that mr. Coles brought up Shannon and Bob back there because we do have a team and and they've they've they're doing it just a great job this is what probably the best best part of our jobs would be to be able to work with our existing companies and help them continue to grow so I just want to point that out okay thank you very local support local yes we will now move into our regular agenda starting with item a a pill of the Planning Commission's denial of two variances associated with the third replant in block 2 sunset Ranch Estates section two one of variants from chapter 10 - 3 - a - one to allow Grand Canal Road a collector Street to maintain 50 feet of right of width in lieu of 60 feet and to a variance from chapter 10.1 11.2 to allow Grand Canal Road a collector Street to maintain 28 feet of paving with in lieu of 50 feet on 3.79 five acres generally located approximately 1,200 30 feet southwest from the intersection of South US Highway 277 and Grand Canal Road John you're on thank you john james director of planning and development services as you mentioned this is an appeal the Planning Commission denied the variances on this particular plat and so the applicant has appealed to you all for possible relief and actually granting

[0:33:36] the variance that the Planning Commission denied you mention the location you can see here and there in a minute they'll be some maps that show a little bit larger area to show the context but the area in red on the map you see there is the subject tract you may recall that the your last meeting you dealt with two rezoning x' for this actual area and that those rezoning x' were on second reading as well so these are all related just a real quick question since this was a denial at the Planning Commission this requires a supermajority this does not this some things do some things don't this is one that does not trigger that supermajority this is the approved Reap lat splitting what basically reconfiguring the Lots this was one lot that is now split into two separate Lots and then if you recall this was two lots that were combined into one new residential lot this plant has been approved it's just waiting your decision on whether or not to waive or not waive the requirements for improvements here on Grand Canal Road at the front of the property so this is the area as well as showing some nearby plots you can see that this is the subject area right here Grand Canal Road the right-of-way that's required under the city's subdivision ordinance is 60 feet there's currently only 50 feet and so they would be responsible for half of the additional the assumption is that property is on one side of the road put there half properties on the other side of the road put in there half so it's 10 feet short and right-of-way so they would be asked to dedicate 5 feet of the front of their property as part of the plat similarly there's a paving requirement currently this is designated as a collector Street collector streets have a minimum paving width of 50 feet the road is currently at 28 feet so the

[0:35:40] ordinance would again require them to participate in their half of the paving the total shortage of paving is 22 feet so they would be expected to pave an additional 11 feet for that roadway James excuse me who would be required to do that the developer when you come in with a when we come in with a plat for a property for development that's the time at which the subdivision ordinance establishes the requirements to improve all utilities and roads so that's the time at which they have to run new water and sewer lines roads to make sure that the properties they're creating are developable with all adequate facilities now those can be in some cases delayed or deferred one of the options they have instead of actually paving the additional paving is to put up a financial guarantee so that in the future the city maybe can do a large project for a much bigger area and they would be responsible for their piece rather than than paving 11 feet just in front of their property I have questions about this concerned property I've been driving past this on a project that I've been working on for the past month you have this would you put your microphone a little closer please you have this house that is if you're looking at the gate to the right their fence line is even with their fence line then you look at a little bit further east at the still yard you have their fence line even with their fence line with a structure of the corner being right up to the fence so if we required them to give that right away and pave how are you gonna work out the issue of that right away later down I don't need each side sandwiching this property well one of

[0:37:44] the primary questions here is is this road going to be widened at some point in the future we think it is 28 feet is not a very wide road and and that's one of the reasons we show this in this area that's mostly agricultural and undeveloped we already have developments going in in that area so if you if you picture in fact if you look at a larger area if you if you picture all of that develop someday whether that's five years or 30 years down the road we suspect that a 28 foot Road is not going to be sufficient so having said that someday this road is going to be widened wider than 28 feet the question is is that gonna be an expense that the taxpayers are asked to pay 20 years from now or is it an expense that the person developing these Lots but what I'm looking at is the overall picture of the percentage of how that property along with the other two properties are to close for this road what would it take to develop on the other side of that federal land where that canal is if if we were to basically it would mean the city would have to acquire the land from the federal government and expand all the expansion of the road in that direction that's definitely an option but that obviously does create additional expense to the city I will say I'm sorry that that that was part of the argument that some of the other plants in this area similar variances to this were approved in the past at least on that logic I'm not sure how close it'd be coming to that residence on East Calgary Court that I'm looking at you can kind of let me see if we have a closer I think that's a little bit closer the left of that John could you draw an arrow where yeah we can't he's talking about themselves and so this property line that's not very straight but that property line runs I believe it's about ten feet from that house and

[0:39:47] so you're right if let's say we get the five feet from this property is as the ordinance requires we did not get the five feet from this property and so if someday we come in to widen the road we would have to purchase that and you're right that would move the property line five feet closer to that house so now the house would be five feet from the property line instead of ten feet from the property along with that structure of the still yard closer to 277 further down up further down yeah does the corner of the back it looks like the back left corner of that structure right up against and it would be right below where it says proposed Reap lat in the white right in here so right about there that structure there is right up against that fence line so there's no moving that fence line it takes it all the way back down Grand Canal back towards the lake to going with your with your line of logic so I guess John one of my questions would be you you just alluded to it very briefly three seconds ago variances were granted in the past that really should not have been granted and if this had been done appropriately by past boards and commissions then we wouldn't be facing this issue today the Planning Commission probably did what they should have done when they denied this however it seems to me that now the situation being what it is on the ground that is probably you know in everyone's best interest for us to look at working with the federal government to get all that we need on the other side when that Road needs to be widened because of the length all the way up and down Grand Canal I don't really know how far back this goes because I think the the picture you have there it's kind of hard to tell but we're going to be affecting a lot of this property along Grand Canal here that's that's my

[0:41:51] observation are there a lot of accidents on Grand Canal row I'm not I don't believe that I'm not aware of any we that's something we did not look at in this again but part of the logic for this isn't I would think the road there may be sufficient for today the question is when there are two hundred three hundred five hundred more houses out there at some point that roads going to be deficient and will need to be widened Brenda some years back there was a I believe a bicycle pedestrian accident out there where were my sick list was was killed and that's probably been ten fifteen years ago but how highly traffic does that road today it has traffic we did not pull the traffic counts on on the road John I didn't quite get the point that was made about us buying the federal land so how would the city purchasing that federal land how would that help this situation for this variance so that this whole Canal area is about the federal government and so I think the thinking and again the the waiver on this property made that point that rather than taking land or requiring paving you know from this property here it could all be acquired from this property and so instead of getting half from the development on the south side and half from the federal government that presumably we could negotiate to get all of the additional right-of-way we need on the north side and not not require any of these developments to do any right of additional right away or paving we have any idea of the cost to purchase you know you know if we think about our responsibility of financial impact to the citizens of San Angelo you

[0:43:56] know I think that's something we have to consider so how much would it cost to purchase you know that versus somebody wanting to develop the property and paying for it themselves I think not only you're looking at the cost of purchasing the land but the cost of the roading etcetera and I think the question mark is number one you know we can talk all day long about buying it from the federal government but who said the federal government wants to sell it well not just that but if you look at our decisions that have been made where in developing an area the development I think of Butler farm and now this the you know residence of Butler farm haven't know where to come but to the city to ask all the taxpayers to pay for the relief that the developer didn't pay for up front I think of Christian village when all of that was going on with that area flooding the citizens ended up having to pay for that because you know we made these variances or you know I don't know I don't think we you know paid enough attention maybe at that time and maybe we did variances so that's my concern you know I don't want somebody to have to do something they don't need to do but if we have ordinances in place then I struggle with continuing to make variances that end up in the long run costing all of the citizens out of you know taxpayers to be required to pay so that's my concern and let me now go along the same thing John not to interrupt but I think all seven of us were elected up here to make sure that we're we're utilizing taxpayers money in the best best way we can and so I'm gonna have to agree with Billy even though it's tough for a developer now to have to come in and do this I don't know that the rest of the taxpayers should be

[0:45:59] saddled with the burden of having to purchase federal dollar property or develop that area in that because we want to use tax dollars I'm not agreeing with that it sounds to me John or am i right if you say that if one side is gonna be developed and widened the other side so we're gonna have to be encroaching on federal property anyway potentially yes if we want the full right-of-way we need as the subdivision has just fund the minimum standard we need then yes we're only asking this property for half and so at some point we would have to be getting as for that residence and that still yard for there's also well I'm gonna go ahead and move to approve the appeal second well and let me just remind you that these are two separate appeals one is for the right-of-way and one is for the pavement so you could approve one and not the other approve both or a proven either what's the minimum right-of-way without encroaching too close to his fence toward he had from the debt back for paving the rights or the current property or the home that's next well it would be the same in either case they're currently at the property lawn so any additional right-of-way is going to encroach on the house and in any additional right-of-way is going to encroach onto the current property of the subject property so if we take any right of the way that's going to force his fence back correct alignment then that there's also a retention pond in there that comes into play at some point which would be additional expense to have to redo that retention pond as well today for the developer of the property is a retention pond now yes yes yes we would have potentially a lot that could be undeveloped and sit there good would you repeat I'm not sure what the

[0:48:06] motion is lanes I need you to state the motion I see Russell and the owner lor and can I get them do that do they have any comments my name is Lauren Edwards I'm the one person trying to purchase this property I understand what mr. Witte has explained about putting the burden on widen the road on the taxpayers and I understand that but on the side on the south side of that road there's physical barriers houses and buildings that will not allow future expansion of that road even 11 feet so 11 feet you're going to either have to buy buildings and houses or you're gonna have highways that 45 mile an hour speed limit that are 16 feet from a house that's gonna affect resale value on that property because nobody wants a highway 16 feet from their house where people are going 4550 miles an hour and then at the end of 277 which isn't really in the pictures or the slides that were presented there's a building that is 2 feet off the property line it's 21 feet from there has a edge of the roadway so that property is going to be even closer yeah all the existing commercial properties that are east of that has the same fence line and property line all of those will have to be purchased and moved over so run into physical barriers that may not be able to overcome just by moving the property line 5 feet and had an 11 feet up painting on that side and or logical side is divide the undeveloped on land from the federal government it's built on that side because there's no physical barriers there it's all undeveloped land but even though widen the other side 11

[0:50:11] feet on the federal side you still gonna have to get literal some some easement if you did 11 on Grand Canal on 11 from the federal government you're gonna have to buy easement from the federal government anyway let's get your 20-foot from the fence line or from the property line to the paving so some kind of government purchase is going to have to happen for that plan to be or for that widened roadway to go to 60 feet it's going to have to happen any you know what this mmm this just points up when when variances are granted at some point in time whenever this all started then it just cascades down to what we have here today that we have to deal with one way or the other so it seems to me this is this is a good time for us to emphasize publicly to our boards and commissions sometimes they don't like to listen to staff sometimes the staff knows what's what's the best thing in terms of long term so you know we're dealing with something that could have happened 10 years ago today so you know that that's what we're having haven't we're being we're being forced to deal with hopefully we can avoid doing those sorts of things in the future as a council but also the boards and commissions can do I need to ask a question a procedural question do we absolutely have to vote on this today I'm not familiar with this area so I hear what this gentleman is saying and the points he's making and at some future point we may have to do something anyway so it is it possible and I may be the only one seeing it this way but I'd like to take a look at what we're talking about and understand it better is it possible to table this yeah it could be postponed to the next meeting well I would like to suggest that we table it and maybe some of us that are

[0:52:15] not that familiar with what the gentleman is telling us could actually take a look at it and kind of understand better the cost associated with all of it would be is that I need to make a motion I'd like to have some comment first I mean we're in Lauren I'm with you we're four streets too late for sets a house is too late to correct this so to me it looks like we're forcing him to put a chicane in a road when we know sooner or later we're all going to have to go to the other side of the road I mean we've missed that opportunity shame on somebody could have been 10 years ago for doing it but you know he's probably try do business here I get that but when we look at it to enforce him something we've already read three other people good way and if we have to go back to that property we got to buy three four houses just looking at it here I mean he's got to set a property there that I would say you'd be advisable whatever you're gonna put on there to keep it 28 feet further back from your property line it might afford something later but just to be consistent with what we've done and in all common sense you're right we're gonna have to go the other strike to get it so I'm saying just consistency to make him be the one oddball out of the 1 2 3 4 or 5 sets we've already let go I see his point here you know I would just say to you you know because mistakes have been made in the past do we keep going down this line making exceptions because it never ends somebody else will come along later and say well you did it I don't remember your last name but something I call you roaring yeah you did it for Lauren so then you need to do it for me and it just goes on and on so when do we stop and say let's make a good decision here based on as much information as we can get in the cost to the taxpayers rather than continuing on and on and then I have one question and I'm not sure but

[0:54:18] John I think you said something about a developer putting up a guarantee something will you repeat that so like yes one of the options that the ordinance allows is rather than asking them to pave the pavement today they can put up a financial guarantee a bond or letter of credit that would allow that to be done in the future now unfortunately that only allows us to extend it a maximum of three years so if we were to ask for the bond oh and let me step back it's not what we asked for it's it's purely their decision whether to pave or put up a financial guarantee but if they put up a financial guarantee we only have three years to basically call that in and make the improvements otherwise it goes away so if we don't do it within three years then he would get his money back if he chose to put up that financial guarantee correct is there anything in the CPI CIP program that addresses this road because I think the other issues if you're taking talking about it today are we talking 20 years down the road 30 years down the road for this project and so I think we have to look at at it holistically and say what are we saying about today what did we do that is creating this problem two years ago a year ago by given variances but what's the grand plan as a city for down the road because I think making a decision today that's singular addressing the issue today without the bigger picture is a problem merinov up mame I know that we had recently an ordinance that we had addressed that would give a little bit more authority to to James Director of Planning I assume James in a situation like this when you have the Planning Commission grant a variance that you could actually bring it to the City Council if you had a concern about the future effects of granting that variance is that correct yes yes if they were to

[0:56:21] grant a variance staff can appeal that to Council just like now an applicant can appeal to council okay I just and that's again to protect the city in the future from situations like this so the Planning Commission made a decision that staff felt wait a minute there's bigger implications in the future we need to bring that back I just okay I just want to make sure that that the citizens also understood that that we did put that ordinance in place to make sure that it actually protects them as well sure John a question right here this would be the only lot from 277 to Country Club Road that hasn't got this waived that's correct okay so it would be the only one thing and I mean there's a when you look at it on the map there's just one set of property it would be the only one sitting in the middle that would have this finding him I think would you John would you illustrate that by its it's basically the red line on this map so the solution is from Country Club Road further we don't grant the experiences it's too late on this one for this trip that's a that's a fair argument that this is the last one in this in this red stretch I would reiterate what you just said is that as new development happens in this new stretch we don't make that same mistake actually in that's where I'm going with the Billy he's got people on both sides have been granted he would be the only spot in there that wouldn't have that to me it's not fair and consistent on that whole Road and to be honest we wouldn't develop a road like this to go straight but from Country Club Road on we need to stick to it I guess Tom that would ask a question then so if that other property east develops and we hold the developer responsible for making sure that it's correct width Road then you've got that spot between where the developer is and Country Club that it'll be the only narrow spot is that is that right so

[0:58:23] then the city has to come in and purchase that property to make that Street on one side or the other is that correct well but you'd have to go all the way down I think this question work towards John and towards Tom yeah I think I mean let's say that we require it all along the purple as future development happens out there you're going to have the red strip that's that's substandard and someday presumably that'll have to be fixed but when you say it will have to be fixed what's the fix down the road well the fix and kind of answer your earlier question in terms of long-range plan this tells you the long-range plan we have an ordinance that says this is a collector Street we have a plan that says collector streets ultimately should have 60 feet of rot away as a minimum and 50 feet of pavement as a minimum so even though there's no current CIP project to make that happen we've said someday this road should be 50 feet wide with pavement and so assuming that bears out in terms of future traffic down the road the city will have to figure out a way to get that extra width most likely from the federal government side that'll be at the cost of the citizens correct correct the other thing that mr. Edwards touched on but I if the road has developed to its full width we're gonna be doing business with the federal government anyway it's just a question of how much we do have motion on the floor do have motion to the floor and we will but where had asked was for Lane to restate his motion because I think we got into the weeds on some other additional conversations question is to accept the appeal to the appeal for mr. Edwards to grant him both both denials yes both

[1:00:32] denials and I'll second that I think we learned motion to is there further public comment all in favor aye aye opposed aye aye so we have one two three four opposing three in favor motion can we raise our hands for those all in favor of approving the variances raise your hand three all opposed motion fails at this point you can take another motion or you can postpone however now can we have another motion in regards to this conversation a motion to to postpone to allow for further correct I would be able I mean willing to do the five foot variants on the property line if it was deferred until that was developed any additional buildings I put on there what we would add an additional five foot of clearance and I will give that proper that 5 foot variance on the property line for winding of the road did he ever decides to widen that they've got that property there they don't have to purchase it I'll give it to you now okay because I don't think you're gonna be able to physically widen that road on that side do you think we put a motion out to postpone until Billy can and other people other council can

[1:02:35] take a look at it I second that motion all in favor away any public comment on that all right all in favor of postponed until the next meeting say I object motion passes to hold off until the next meeting so we can do further research be considerate warding rfb - FD o 3 - 1 7 construction of fire station number 4 - mid tex of Midland Texas and the amount of three million two hundred fourteen thousand two hundred budgeted for purchase in fiscal year eighteen and authorizing the city manager a designated negotiate and execute any related documents Brian you're on morning mayor calvini Ryan done fire chief citizen Angelo here this morning to look at the bids for the new fire station for which would be located at 34 15 Edgewood and would replace the existing old station four that's located at 702 East Avenue L twenty-one bid packets were sent out to different construction personnel three were returned with bids mid Tex JC commercial and Onix construction the base bids were three million sixty-two thousand three million four hundred twenty seven thousand seven seven seven and three million one hundred one thousand nine ninety four for their base bids what you have before you is the alternates that we wanted in the station connecting driveway the by folding doors and the recirculation fan systems to to eject diesel exhaust fumes out of the

[1:04:39] station's for the total of the bid that you see that we presented to you for three million two hundred fourteen thousand two hundred dollars and that was the lowest bid for those totals there's also some other expenses that the fire department manages or takes care of because we we believe we can do it cheaper than having it bid into the contract the fencing the landscaping and then all the interior stuff there's also two other expenses with thirty six thousand nine hundred twenty nine dollars in remaining architect fees to be paid and a gas line that has to be put in for twelve thousand eight hundred seventy two the total upcoming expenses for that or three million four hundred fifty four thousand and one dollars as you can see in the financial impact of your packet let me ask you a question are you saying that you have what is budgeted the three in the fiscal year eighteen budget right now funding sources that we have sitting there currently or three million twenty nine thousand nine hundred seventy eight dollars in account five seventeen 9800 720 and 325 thousand 368 101 sorry three 325 thousand three hours to $86 in account 101 9800 710 we are short ninety eight thousand six hundred and thirty seven dollars the funding source for that is where we are fixing to receive six hundred and thirty seven thousand and that Medicaid supplements one-time payment as the program goes that we file for every year so we added that as a funding source for the last ninety eight thousand dollars what do though those monies usually go to pay for they they're not guaranteed mayor they come in as we file them for the year for under payment on hamlets us by Medicaid or uninsured personnel so there at one time it's been it's not a revenue stream it's a one-time thing that come in there is no monies dedicated to expense because we weren't

[1:06:40] sure how much we were in but we have found out where and it may already be in the accounts I got an email this morning saying that most that people received their Friday or Monday and I know we were getting six hundred and thirty seven thousand dollars for that the six hundred and some thousand dollars are pulling ninety eight thousand out and then the balance of that money is used for widened city's discretion and the low bid was what on the base bid or what the alternates basically the base bid was 3 million sixty two thousand the difference between the three alternates we had it brought it up to three million two hundred fourteen thousand bid actually come in about I was expecting this bid to come in at three point eight to four million dollars so it actually came in quite a bit under I think there's a little bit of law right now before the whole picks up we were very lucky when we bit those are the twins assistant this station is the triplet to the two previous ones I think when we got those other two bit back then we got it right before the oil boom started because construction costs has went through the roof and though in the last seven years and we saw that with the training center I mean that was pretty rough this one actually came in like I said about a half a million dollars less than what I thought it was going to is there flexibility on the piece of real estate for any further expansion development of any kind or are we maxed out on the actual piece of real estate that this is being built on for city purposes there would be expansion stuff if the city need to put a tower something like that there will be a retention pond on the property as far as commercial business it abuts a residential neighborhood the it's a three acre piece of property right there and it slopes down so there is a retention pond to catch any runoff or drainage to the north end of that property can you tell me where this is

[1:08:44] it located it's 34:15 Edgewood the corner Brenda of Edgewood and Chadbourne as you're headed towards a south gate of Goodfellow do I have any further questions for Brian from Council it's in the heart of district 1 mayor any questions from Council do I have a motion do I have comment from the public yes council how many square feet are we talking about the fire station is approximately 11,000 square feet do I have further public comment if there's no further comment then we will take a vote all in favor of approving the three million two hundred fourteen thousand two hundred dollars which is budgeted and fiscal 18 say aye aye are there any opposed motion passes seven zero items C second reading a public hearing of an ordinance for the vacation and abandonment of a 0.6 for two acre 28,000 square feet segment of the South Murray Street public right-of-way generally located between Brian Street and Roosevelt Street John thank you John James Director of Planning and development services this is second reading so this is an item you saw last time and you asked us to put it on regular agenda for further discussion but this is the abandonment of the area in red you see there on the map of Murray Street between Bryan and Roosevelt this is just a future land-use plan and existing zoning for the area

[1:10:49] and just looking at that Street that would be abandoned just a different map showing the property lines this this is the applicant the owner of that property and they would be acquiring basically that abandoned right-of-way if if you choose to abandon it this is the surrounding area as you can see Roosevelt is designated as a manjar arterial plan to be a fairly major street for circulation within this area although as as noted here it's it's currently just a caliche street 32 feet wide ultimately will be a 64 foot wide street and then similarly bryant there to the north is planned for 40 feet pavement but currently is 40 feet but it's caliche material rather than an actual pavement when is it planned to be paved well again typically that would be paved by the developer which in this case is the property owner I will note that both Brian and Roosevelt currently have sufficient right-of-way widths and so should this move forward to a replay there would be no additional property that would be needed for right-of-way it would just be a paving obligation this is consistent all abandonments that come to you or most of them if not all of them have required Reap lat of the property to incorporate the abandoned right-of-way into the overall property of the adjacent property that's acquiring that right-of-way it does ensure the creation of the new lot one of the questions that came up last time was well what if we just required them to replant that right-of-way that's that is within your discretion to do it that way the one problem that we see with that is they are acquiring this right-of-way for basically expansion on their side of a parking lot and a fire lane by keeping it as a separate lot that would allow them to

[1:12:54] sell it to someone else in the future would they do that probably not but by keeping these two Lots as two separate Lots under a common ownership there's nothing that would prevent them from selling that off and then potentially creating problems down the road the main point here I think is is this one the decision on whether or not to acquire that additional right-of-way acquire or require additional paving is typically done at the planning stage when they are replanting the property we believe that it's premature at this point to make a decision on whether or not to require that we believe that you should require the reap lat and then during the reap LAT process is when that type of analysis would be done to determine do we need additional right-of-way do we need additional paving from this particular property it also might preclude options that might be considered rather than full waiver maybe there's a partial waiver maybe they they put money in a financial guarantee to have it done in the future or maybe there's a development agreement that they don't have to do it today but they do it whenever the city comes in to improve the arterial by not requiring the replay today you're taking all those options off the table and saying they they don't have to we don't even have to review it or analyze it as we discussed in the other item any any waiver of those improvements are shifting that obligation again this is an a monitor arterial street that's planned to serve a currently undeveloped area long term into the future and and so you're potentially creating an issue down the road for city taxpayers bullet two makes that same point you're not waiving costs somebody's gonna pay those costs the question is who ends up paying it city taxpayers or each each property as those properties do and in any case you retain the final decision if you make them reap lat

[1:14:57] it's ultimately your decision when that replac comes through to waive these requirements so as as the Planning Commission has already suggested that they would waive those requirements it seemed from the last meeting that you all are leaning that direction as well that's ultimately your decision so if you make them reap lat but still think those those requirements should not be an obligation on that property owner that's your call at that point right now you're just saying the decision that needs to be made today is whether or not to require a replanting that's correct that's the only decision that has to be made today are want to go further and talk about financial obligations or who's responsible for what yeah and that that discussion is really we think not appropriate for the abandonment process which is what we're going through now that's an appropriate discussion when the replac comes forward - what are the options at that point so basically we are deciding today whether to ask them to reap lat period well ultimately you are deciding whether or not to abandon a right-of-way that is currently a city street as part of that we have typical conditions that are placed on the property owner who is seeking that abandonment one of those is replanting the property but as noted the Planning Commission did they recommend it excluding that one also the payment this one has another one which is the exchange for as part of the whole process acquiring the easement that we need along Belle Street and then this this last one is a somewhat unique one but it's ensuring that currently that road right-of-way serves as a fire lane so if something happens at that facility fire trucks can get there on the road this would simply require that they maintain a fire fire lane within that

[1:17:02] area so that fire trucks would have that same ability to access the site so again in summary your your decisions whether or not to abandon the street and as part of that whether or not to require all four of these conditions and talk to me about the payment fee schedule 26:25 that's required because we have as part of our standard fee schedule we have a calculation that basically the idea is we own a right to use that street if we're going to give that up and basically sell the property to the adjacent property owner there's a calculated fee it's not technically a purchase of that abandoned property but it's it's similar and that's the way the fee is calculated and we the city need work we part of the reason this conversation has come up is because the city needs the easement along Belle Street which is part of this property well I wouldn't say and the city needs that easement but we have other means by which to acquire that easement it just so happened that one of the properties we were discussing an easement with during that same time came forward with this abandonment request and so we folded that into this process that would be going on independently if you were to strike that condition the city is still separately looking at acquiring that easement whether or not this goes forward is this loose Lucie and Harry did I notice that do y'all want to comment I'd say I'd ask one question now if we we decided to do the replan on this are we talking about South Murray for the owner to to pave that particular area that that we are suggesting that we want to abandon I think we found out from last meeting Harry that there's

[1:19:05] already done a seal code on that property that Murray Street right isn't that what came up last time so legitimately even though the picture shows it's a caliche Street it has since been sealed coded and so it's no longer caliche Street it's actually has treatment of some sort it was more than caliche before they seal coded it it wasn't just caliche but we're not requiring them to do anything on that part except for providing a fire lane which can be caliche that doesn't require pavement or concrete but the longer answer is my understanding is they intend to use that for parking so they will be paving or making concrete or it might be caliche but for a parking area but all we would be requiring and that is that it be sufficient to support a fire truck as a fire lane and that's all determined by the fire code again if you struck that condition that's going to be a condition anyway but I think that's a safety situation I don't wouldn't strike that Lucy I don't have any problem with the way you presented and the conditions that you put down for approval okay so Lucy with that but you're not asking for the replan if I remember Russell's talk from last time here was it's a very defined to different planets were not requesting the replant to one to leave it is - to me it's fine the way the way you presented it but you're talking about the replant of the property but you said that had nothing to do with it right that you were mainly talking about the ban demand of the no staff is recommending that they that our normal requirement of replanting the property applies in this case okay the Planning Commission struck that requirement okay and so while the whole overall big picture is an abandonment

[1:21:08] really the root of the question for you today is in order to abandon it should you require a replay of the property or not is there a motion I think rustle did you want to talk well we usually have a motion a second before public comment so so I'm asking is there a motion and what is your motion to approve this presented with all four conditions yes sir is there a second second do we have public comment good morning council mayor Russell with skg engineering the replant topic if the way replanting works in the way abandonment works it becomes technically impossible if you literally follow the way it a reap light is done to accomplish a reap lat prior to abandonment because you're asking the property owner to replant something they don't own and so we need to step back and really assess how this can be accomplished and so we would ask that a reap lat not be required but we would not mind purchasing a this strip of property if it's Murray Street could be plaited it's large enough to meet the criteria for the zoning classification as a standalone lot and it will accomplish what I hear the sitting wanting to accomplish with respect to the planting of this property so maybe mr. James could educate myself on how this could work because the city has to

[1:23:14] file a quit claim deed to the owner in order for them to incorporate it into their property in order for them to replant this as a large tract so you've kind of got us in a conundrum on how to really legally technically accomplish agree with those comments pick we're asking to reply it something they don't own yet we've got and we haven't it seems to me we need to agree to abandon at first and then later decide whether we need to replant it but we need the abandonment to happen before somebody can replant it because they don't own it this is the normal way we do business we did this over at the Elks when we closed an alley and it did you do it simultaneously when you make the payment on this then at that point in time then you own that so you do it all simultaneously so that this all this is doing is so it doesn't have to be brought back to either the Planning Commission or to the council so you do know not necessarily in that order but you do it Maul there's actually no point at which we could bring it back now is the only time you have to place the condition but you're right we do this every every single abandonment the abandonment is approved with these conditions so then the abandoned technically doesn't happen until they've replanted they replay as part of the pre plat there's a condition that the property be quitclaim to them and so you're right in effect it happens simultaneously because of the conditions of approval both things have a condition of approval that the other is met and so when once both arm at both the reap lat and the abandoned might basically take place at the same time John you probably said this more than once but what's the issue if we're going to abandon the property and let you know someone else has the property what is their issue

[1:25:16] with replanting of the property what's the issue I just don't think we ought to require them to replant the property I'm supportive abandoning it I just don't know why we would put that condition of approval to replant it as part of the conditions the ultimate can issue would be the financial burden to the property owner if there are requirements to make improvements to Roosevelt and the other street it just puts the price of that little abandonment way out of reach or reason and so becomes really technically or by any business reasoning a crazy move that that they will not pursue and so an example so for instance when you talk about improvements required to Roosevelt and and Murray can you give me an example of what the cost impact for the for for Brian Street and Roosevelt Street we're not gonna have to do anything to Murray because it's being abandoned okay and so it would be to Roosevelt and Brian Street so we would have to improve our incremental half of those two streets up to what the city standards are so we so for Roosevelt assistance condition we would be widening yet so you're talking about $200,000 potential cost impact to widen Roosevelt and Brian Street now we're not going to talk about Bell Street because we believe it's going to be it's already in the CIP project it's going to be widened and improved and have sidewalks so so if Bell Street wasn't a CIP we would also be talking about it as well but I'm hoping that the city's not going to shift a recognized financial burden from the city over to a private entity or an individual for that so so it it puts the cost of a 0.64 acre tract to

[1:27:21] $200,000 and that's just not at all so we expect that at some future point the city is going to make a requirement that something happened with Roosevelt and Brian understood John to say nothing was in the works for there to be anything done to those streets well we don't know if you require the replant will be making application to the city to replant this into into one tract and at that point in time we'll have the discussion of whether to get variances for the improvements to Brian in row felt at that time so it's as we've all agree it's not a discussion for the abandonment it's it's tied to a discussion for the planning process so if we just totally take the replating criteria off the table it simplifies this tremendously and we can all go on down the road and do business like we want to be doing business so what's the downside for the city if we don't require this replant Daniel you want to comment on that no I'm just gonna say as far as a replay if you do the replay at this point it required it just goes to the Planning Commission for that decision at this point if the City Council makes a decision to not approve a replant or just leave that alone and it takes that away from Planning Commission so the decisions made here so again if you reap lat if you require for replant it does have to go the Planning Commission for that decision so one of the issues with the reap lot is currently you have this property which is the subject property they are asking the city basically to sell them this what is currently right-of-way and our understanding is their intent is to then use that entire larger property as a single property typically you would combine those two individual pieces into the one larger property again as I mentioned earlier if if you were to not

[1:29:25] require replant or simply to require them to replant this because he's right it does meet the minimum standards for a lot you're still creating two separate Lots that can be sold separately they're treated separately because there are two separate Lots and so if if this property expands into that then you you create issues by still being two separate Lots rather than one I'd like to add to that that in the legal department we see this come up typically when a property is resold that the person who is purchasing the property believes that it is one continuous property as far as planning is concerned and right now I don't think we have any development standards that would go into effect but in a lot of cities you're not allowed to build for instance across two different planted properties so they would be prepared from building if we did a rule like that so it's one of those situations where today you know it's hard to predict what effect having to you know adjacent differently platted properties would be and as to the issue of the road I mean that's pretty much how we ended up in that prior discussion mr. goalie is essentially asking you to make a decision on a second process that you haven't even approved going into to approve this abandonment so it's hard I mean I don't know if John can say with any kind of certainty I certainly can't what issues will come up but these issues do come up on a very frequent basis I know I've just gone through replanting with some property that my mom sold and I had to buy back so I have some personal experience with replanting there is a motion are there further public comment the motion on the table is to accept as presented with the four conditions of approval all of those in favor say aye opposed I it passes for five to two moving on to item D consider

[1:31:38] adopting a resolution nominating candidates to serve on the board of directors at the Tom Green County appraisal district for the 2018-19 term and Brian you're our presenter today yes so this process is spoken about in the property in the state property tax code this is the gist the nomination this is not the voting process whoa what we essentially need today is for you to nominate five as a group you'll nominate five names so it'll be one motion nominating five names or five different nominations or five different motions nominating one name however you want to do it but we just need five names today and then an approval of a resolution it would be better if we do it in one Oshin because then we can adopt the resolution with those five names so the the history is the the board as is currently as it currently exists with the five members that are on it currently have been on there since 2011 all of them have been on there six years two of them have been on there eight years so that that's really the history and up to the you know from here on it's just your decision do you want to renounce um of those all of them none of them however you want to do it now if I do not go ahead uestion we're the last taxing entity entity to look at these five people the school district and the county and I presumed the outlying school districts have already approved these five nominees what we do today may or may not make any difference since we've got 24% of that whole total vote is that correct right well we're we're not making we're not issuing the votes today we're just putting nominees on there but yes your point is well-taken if you add a member that the other the other taxing entities don't put any

[1:33:42] votes to and you split your votes then that that extra nominee is probably not going to be elected to the board kind of seems like the cart is before the horse on this whole process because I'm not sure but I again you said they've already voted on it so I'm not they have not given their votes but they presented it as support of these five they've nominated these five and you know it's based on our meeting schedule when we get that letter from bill Benson which I got last week we put it on this agenda as quickly as possible but I think a review of the process needs to happen because it's really not for them to re nominate people for these positions and present them before we've even had a discussion on him seems backwards the process is not something that that we are I mean it's it's spoken to by the Texas state property tax code and then bill Benson gets out those letters to the entities all theoretically on the same day there was some delay and it did not come to me and so I had to request the letter so that was that was one process and I've asked them in the future to make sure that they send it to me instead of whoever else they're sending it to just to make sure that I'm able to get it on the agenda you know fast enough however we wouldn't have been able to get it on the last meeting so it would be here either way you might have known about it a little sooner but it would still be on this meeting now the the opportunity you have is if you nominate a new person you can force that person to be on the board when you when you allocate your votes if you allocated all of your votes to one person it's 24 percent of the total votes it would get that one person elected that is totally up to up to you so you do you do have some some power I

[1:35:49] mean as the third largest taxing or that as the second largest taxing entity one of the top three we do have a lot of power and we can we can make sure that at least one person gets elected of our choosing again totally up to you how you want to go forward how do we do this Brian do we just say out names you can talk out names until somebody's ready to make a motion and then you can make that motion you know to nominate those five the length of service that this it's it's a two-year term and they'll begin January 1st in a run through December 31st of 2019 I'd like to throw out the name David Allen does anybody else have a name they want to put out there and tell us who the five are the fun the fiver John John beg nod John Cohn Russell Devore Louie Gomez and Bob Reeves and Bob Reeves and John beg none have been on there for eight years the other ones have been on there for six I believe and the link that their terms are two-year terms in total it can they have as many two-year terms like for ten years so many years unlimited earn there are no limit on the terms that I'm aware of yeah I think our hands are tied personally I I don't know that we can make a different decision in these five particular names well again if you if you find one name that you all like when when we go to allocate the votes you can put a thousand in one votes toward that person and make sure that they're going to be elected because that would be you know that would be twenty percent of the

[1:37:51] total votes that that person would receive that would be that would be most of Europe most of your votes since you get twelve hundred and there are five thousand total votes and as a city we were allocated twelve hundred ninety three so a thousand and one would make sure that somebody gets elected if you have a new name the key is if there's a name that you want on that list get it on the list that's the first step right you've got to be nominated to be able to vote for them and that's all we're doing today right Brian's right we're just doing the nomination as a priority in terms of the five names right sorry we're not voting today in terms of putting votes behind anybody we're simply out there we're simply nominating five people and then I believe it'll probably be the first meeting in November when we allocate the votes it'll be either the first or second meeting in November will allocate those votes alright so we sorry so that'll give us a chance I know none of these people I know john beck boyd from TV i think and his plant section but the other people including the name that we just heard up here i know nothing about these people so this is the first you're not heard of it when we got the agenda so if we put a name on the list then we would can we get background information from you brian on who they are and what they do and i can request that from the appraisal district or i can crowd try to contact those those individuals as soon as i have that information i'm not sure what out what i'll get back because you know depends on the names that that we actually get but i can try to get as much information as I can do we have go ahead Lucy the nominations are today yes and you know that again the the

[1:40:01] process is a little complicated but it's it's a state law so state law says what that makes it today the day meaning when do they start the process so that we could back it up by 60 days so we don't get into this cart before the horse well the chief appraiser has to prepare a ballot listing the candidates before October 30th which is why we're kind of on a time crunch I think the letters went out in June but as Brian said we didn't receive ours and a timely manner so can we demand a you know they've got their October 30 is what is our last I mean what do we want to put out there is that we have to have that in our hands for consideration by us well and I have spoken to him about who they sent it to and and I talked to him last year but I talked to Bill Benson this time and said please make sure this kits to me so that I can get it on the agenda again I don't know that we've been able to get it before the last agenda because the letter did go out in September it went out September chances are that we have been able to get it and put it on the agenda in time or what it would have been pretty close but at least I could have forwarded it to to all of you much sooner you know if that's what y'all would like me to do in a future year as soon as I get it I can forward it to two to y'all in a Friday packet or something like that well I think that next time as soon as you get it it should automatically be placed on the agenda for the next council meeting and even even if that's before we get our agenda packet so I mean oh absolutely yeah I mean absolutely we get it on the agenda as soon as I get the letter I mean I went from from knowing about the letter coming to me because I had contacted the appraisal district I called Daniel immediately and said do you mind if I add this to the agenda which he was incomplete incomplete supportive so we did as far as the city

[1:42:05] staff as soon as we had the letter we got it on there it's just like like Theresa mentioned there is a time crunch our resolution has to be adopted by the 15th in order for him to prepare the ballot that gives him two weeks to prepare the ballot and get it out to us by the 30th again as soon as as soon as it's on I'll get it I believe we have to adopt the resolution for the fourth of vote totals by December but the first meeting in December so I'll get it on as early as I can in November so even if y'all don't want to allocate the votes in the first meeting in November theoretically you could allocate them in the second meeting if we if we do have two meetings in November so I'll get it on as soon as I get that that ballot back from the appraisal district I'll get it on four for y'all's consideration Ryan can you tell us exactly what what these people do I mean I think we need to know what that job responsibilities is if if we when we want to make a decision to put somebody else's name on the ballot we really need to know what these these five people have been doing for these last six eight years I mean what would I let me actually receive that question last week and I said there's a simple answer the appraisal district serves all of the local taxing entities as you know number one performing the appraisals of the tax parcels they you know they they oversee that process they don't actually perform the appraisal but they they oversee that process properly applying the exemptions they they make sure that that and the way they do that is there's a remediation process if a a property once the property owner wants to protest their value or whatever they're able to go in and and and do that and so the the appraisal board kind of oversees all of

[1:44:09] that there have been any changes directed by these five people about the process over the past year two years I'm I'm not aware of any changes to the process it's a very tight process driven by the state so on a local level they don't have flexibility or they do have flexibility it's just not been I think a great deal of it is spoken to in the state law if wholesale changes would be needed I believe it would require the state law to be changed the question mark is is what authority and power do these people have in terms of impact on property taxes or approach to property taxes outside what is dictated to them by the state well the key here is they don't determine taxes they determine values right and yes but the values are what are taxed yes and they're the governing board for that organization and so they do what you do for this organization that they don't actually perform the appraisal they do oversee the remediation process as I understand it so that when you want to come forward because I think you have a lot of information that you could share with us and we're gonna put you on the spot because I I know you've got you represent a lot of people we're glad you also thank thank you candy pool executive vice president San Angelo Association of Realtors a little bit I know about the appraisal process I'll just kind of fill you in with that the appraisers utilize some of the data that our association gives them on helping them to come up with a value of properties and they reapply every year

[1:46:16] certain properties and so it has to be done every three years areas they also have to be within 5% of what the market is well the only way they know about the market really is through the MLS sold and so through confidential information we passed that sold information on to the county appraiser so that they can do their job the school board sets their tax rate you set the city tax rate and the county sets their tax rate and so the appraisal let's say the property is a hundred thousand appraised then those tax rates are added in and so you have the three different ones the board does not make a decision on the individual values they oversee the processing how the appraisers do their business the remedial board which is the review board the review board when someone they have the process in the July August timeframe says I don't like what you valued my property at they can go before an appeals hearing and there's an appeals process and it is different people than the five members on the board and they hear from the public and they make a determination if the value set by the appraiser of the county is within the reason it's right it's got its bounds da-da-da-da-da so it is not the board directors those five names that here that it's a remedial board different two different things the board itself the Board of Directors these five the way I understand it they are seek process they oversee the remedial process making sure it's done right and they oversee the appraisal portion making sure everything is the tax rates from the three entities are applied appropriately they make sure

[1:48:19] the state law is followed in all of that and understand this five percent within the property value the state requires or the county gets a penalty tax and the reason years ago we started helping them no because we're the only ones with sole data is because the county that means you and me as taxpayers paid over three point five million dollars in a fine to the state of Texas because we were not within that five percent and had not gotten there and we're not appraising fast enough and getting things done properly and so bill Benson has just bent over backwards he does everything he can to make our County and the process as done as well as it can be we cooperate with them he cooperates with our association and together we've helped that process along and the county has not had this fine since then so that's just kind of an overview for you and I hope that helps you a little bit would you like to be on the board I do know a little bit about real estate and I would love to someday okay and I do have state law provided to us by the Comptroller kind of a summary of their duties they establish the appraisal district office they hire the chief appraiser they adopt the annual operating budget for the appraisal district they appoint the appraisal review board so they as she mentioned they they're not directly involved in the process of the remediation but they do they do appoint those members that are over that so they're they oversee it in a way they select the chairman and secretary from the appraisal review board they notify us of any vacancy on the board and all this process elect member elect from members a chair and a

[1:50:21] secretary at the first meeting of their meeting kind of goes on and on I don't think the rest of them are as big as the first a little bit though there so I can continue to read if you want me to but I don't want to I don't want to bore you it's just details either do we vote one person at a time or two a slate of people if we have more than one person we want to appoint it would be easier for us if you can make it in one motion adopting a resolution with those five names I'm gonna nominate candy pool nominate David Allen any other names for consideration I'm good with the list then there is a mutt is there a second on the motion of David now and no yes what three essentially if you're going to add the two new ones what three old ones are you going to put on there do you have any other new ones I just need I need a motion with five names we cannot do seven names we can only we can only nominate five names by state law well it creates a problem because I think the most of us don't have a lot of good background on the five that are there so it's pretty hard to say that we want to removed without known a little more about having an opportunity to interview these people are talking these things you can nominate just two I would guess and not make nominations for the other three slots that's what I'm asking is it can we just nominate those two people without asking that two people not be I would I would assume that you can but I don't do we have a way to verify that Steve did you have a comment or I see somebody waving arms their legs or something out there Council candy pool again I can give you background on two

[1:52:29] of those members Bob Reeves is a past councilmember several years ago and he is also a realtor member and has been but I think he's been on eight years now Russell Devore is also a longtime realtor in San Angelo and I think he's been on six years and those two I know and have known for over twenty years both of them and their businesses real estate John Kahn is a property owner in the area and he's has been for a long time Luis Gomez is it's an accountant that has the business probably 30-plus years and he has served on several boards I believe so all of those individuals are good people I don't I don't know that we that's the question I think the bottom line is is if we would have known a further on advance we could have made some decisions whether we wanted to go with these five people or whether we had other people that we wanted to introduce in this process you know some of them been there six years some of them eight years at some point in time in the future you want to introduce new blood but whether or not we've got that we can do that today without with seven people coming to the realization of five names I'm not sure we can I think there's a motion to nominate two new people without consideration for taking two people off so we're simply nominating a slate of two additional people or seven people so you would just be nominating two then would that would that then allow us when it comes time to allocate our votes to allocate all of our votes to only those two people it would not prevent your from voting on old old seven that might be on the ballot it wouldn't prevent you from allocating your votes to anybody that's on that ballot so the seven we

[1:54:32] could allocate our votes towards five people or divide it by seven right typically the way we present it is each each council member has you know if you divided it by seven you've got this many votes and then there's like a leftover of five or so votes that you would have to agree to as as a council in the past it's not been a problem you know divvying out those votes usually it's you know pretty much even among the five people that you want to vote for again if during this process you want to force one of the new nominees on there then you would have to approach that a little differently this time and make sure that a thousand and one votes go to one person would would it essentially force that person onto the board let's clarify we're not limited just to the two we nominate today we can vote for the time right the ballot will be brought back with with all the new names I probably would recommend that you at least nominate and again do what you to what you would like to do I would recommend that we suggest five names even if it's the two and then the ones with the longest tenure or the shortest tenure however you want to do it just so at least we have a resolution with five names however you want to do it I'd like a resolution just nominating the two people we've nominated and then we will vote later date in terms of how those votes would be split amongst the seven people yes I'm sorry she just found a thing that we do have to nominate five names we cannot nominate just two and that would have that's the reason I was kind of recommending that I didn't want it to invalidate our resolution again I'll go back and say before we get here two years from now we need we need to be educated a little more we need to have some further advance notice than just just four or five days so we can do what we need to do it's going to be tough for seven

[1:56:36] people to make a decision on five names today especially since we've introduced two other names would you like to nominate five people I'd like to include John beg no let's on this list in John Cawood now and we have John beg no we have John Connon we have candy pull do I have a another nominee miss Gomez and we have luis gomez we now have a slate of five people meaning John beg no John Cohn Louis Gomez candy pool and David Nouwen okay and that's your motion okay do I have a second all in favor aye opposed no opposed votes all right so we are now on to item 7 any follow-up an administrative issues that we need to address today or future agenda items if not then I asked for a motion for adjournment with just one moment I have a hand in the audience and you're more I live in San Angelo and I'm in Tommy's district and the new fire station I noticed he did not put up on the board or that's going to be located we talked about that Oh earlier yes it's not going to have much room to expand it's in a water area that's floods and it also has people right behind it and all that motion all those fire trucks so I don't know does anybody have an answer and we can talk

[1:58:38] to you after this meeting is over and get you that information but right now we've already covered that topic and we can't discuss that at this point can't discuss it okay all right thank you all right so is there a motion for adjournment it's almost a second all in favor opposed okay we're gonna keep on working on it

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=JIJe9ekWHtQ