San Angelo City Council 7-17-18

[0:00:00] if everyone could please sit down we will call the meeting to order it is 833 on July the 17th 2018 welcome to City Council we are gonna start with a legislative prayer Tommy would you please lead us be glad to there god we we thank you that we were able to get up this morning and if we chose to come here thank you for that we thank you for the city in which we live I want to thank you for every city employee that we have that makes the place work and run thank you for my fellow councilmembers I would ask as as we go about our business today that you give us wisdom you give us discernment to do what hopefully is best and right for the community if there is disagreement to help us to be respectful of one another helpless to be civil to one another and I pray specifically dear Lord that you send us some rain you know how badly we need it and there is much of our land that needs it and I pray that you pour out that blessing upon us and I ask these things in your son's name Amen amen this morning we're gonna have abri groves who is entering first grade at Crockett elementary school and she is the daughter of Brian groves who is our city vo you know videographer ok so let's turn around and you take us on OK [Applause]

[0:02:39] Anthony Wilson and Brian if you would please come forward I know I saw Anthony earlier he's coming this morning we are going to have a recognition of the public information office sign Anjos cool cat dudes were the top dogs at the state gathering of the Texas Association of municipal information officers the video spots produced by the city's public information office touting cat adoptions won first place in the association's competition for most creative marketing campaign with the least dollars the videos feature local men talking about their love for their cats with the tagline cats they're not just for crazy ladies the Animal Shelter saw a spike in adoptions during the campaign the public information office typically stands out in the state competition and this year was no exception the office won a second place award for public service announcement produced for the SA PD the recruitment spot features hacen Angela police officer talking about what he loves about his job shattered dreams also won third place in the special one-time program category the short film co-produced by city videographer brian groves was a dramatic story of the fatal consequences of teenage drinking and driving all of the awards were one against offices in the state states metropolitan cities also at the conference groves spoke about innovative video efforts and the State Association elected public information officer anthe Anthony Wilson as its treasurer therefore I Brenda Gunther mayor of the city of San Angelo on behalf of the city council do hereby recognize and applaud the Public Information Office for its achievement and positive determination to make a difference in our community

[0:04:43] [Applause] two quick things first of all I want to thank Brian for always making our community look as wonderful as it actually is and then second of all please adopt a cat [Applause] I want to say please turn off your cellphone's if you still have one on that I did not remind you to do early on and we now open it City Council meeting up for public comment issues are 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 that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda the council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items do we have any public comment this morning morning everybody I'm Michael Looney I'm the vice president of economic development for the Sin Angelo Chamber of Commerce and on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce board and leadership we wanted to take a quick minute and we wanted to recognize one of your people who is a very good friend of the chamber and and and has helped us greatly in the past year during a period of transition and that person is mr. Michael Dane assistant city manager for the city of San Angelo and today half a chamber board and the

[0:06:48] Chamber membership we are presenting Michael Dane with an award that says in grateful appreciation of your guidance and leadership the task of a leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been and we wanted to thank you Michael Dane for all that you've done for the chamber of commerce and we wanted to present you this award [Applause] we appreciate you and we appreciate your hard work and your dedication and your friendship to all of the people of the city my Bruce Partain CEO of the chamber just like to add that Michael is one of those guys that welcomes you to a community and he ends almost every meeting with the phrase what can I do for you and so I think he is an example of a great public servant thank you do I have any further public comment with no further public comment we will move into our consent agenda Billy do you have anything you'd like to pull from the consent agenda nothing to pull Thank You Lane Lucy Tommy Harry no with nothing to pull from the consent agenda do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda so moved and a second all in favor of approving the consent agenda say aye we will move into our regular agenda a is a public hearing and first reading for one an amendment to the zoning ordinance

[0:08:50] creating a new section 2 1 2 river quarter district overlay zone downtown district overlay zone and cultural district overlay zone and establishing standards for development within these zones create a new section 309 River quarter district overlay zone section 310 downtown district overlay zone and section 311 cultural district overlay zone and identifying their purpose applicability and review procedures rezoning properties along the concho River to apply the river corridor overlay zoning district rezoning properties generally located north of Neffs way east of South David Street south of Houston heart and west of North emmerich Street to apply the downtown overlay zoning district and rezoning properties generally located north of East Highland Boulevard east of rust Street south of Baker Street and west of Hill Street to apply the cultural overlay zoning district John and actually we will be presenting one two and three all together and you can make one on all of them so if you would read two and three item two an amendment to the zoning ordinance revising the standards in Section 211 historic overlay zone and sections 308 H o historic overlay zone to clarify when a certificate of appropriateness is required amending section 12.1 oh one seven River Quarter area the City quote of ordinances replacing the river corridor sign review area with the New River Quarter district downtown district and cultural district overlays and repealing article twelve point zero six River corridor development ordinance the old town district and boundary map z1o dash 14 and section twelve point or point oh one eight Fort Concho historic district an item three an amendment to the zoning ordinance revising section 301 establishment of districts by providing designations for River Quarter downtown in cultural district overlay zones and John James you are now on you so this does this ordinance amendment it's it's

[0:10:58] sounds fairly complicated there's a lot of different section of the ordinance sections of the ordinance that are amended but I'm going to try to simplify that and talk about the key differences here one of the main difference or one of the two main differences is amending the boundaries of what is now our river corridor district I'll come back to Maps and we'll have some zoom in maps to show in a minute but basically what this does is three different things it creates three new overlay districts along with the standards for those districts it takes what is now the river corridor district and splits it into the river corridor district new downtown district and a new cultural district it also designates what it can be approved by staff and what can be approved by the design and historic Review Commission or the D HRC and I'll get into a little bit of detail about that in a minute but it's basically shifting some things that now have to go to the Commission for approval it shifts those two staffs so more things can be approved and reviewed by staff without those things having to go to the Commission for a review hopefully simplifying the process for many of the developments in the river corridor in downtown it does repeal the existing districts so it in in addition to creating the new districts we have to repeal the old river corridor district as well as the Fort Concho and old town districts those the Fort Concho and Old Town districts you'll see in the maps are being replaced by a new cultural district which encompasses both the museum area and Fort Concho as well as Old Town it also cleans up some duplication and cross-references because of the some of the other changes we have to change some cross references and numbering of sections but that's all clean up to accommodate the other things and then we're revising the process in creating new some new standards there's a new process for improvements within three districts that's what I talked about in terms of which goes to the Commission and which is approved by staff and then it adds a review for certain types of

[0:13:02] exterior work on buildings that don't require a building permit currently the only things that can be reviewed in the river corridor in downtown development are things that require a building permit and so you'll see we're adding some things like painting of a building or reroofing a building that don't require a building permit but that we've heard some concerns that those things should be reviewed for development and redevelopment so again we're appealing the existing river corridor Fort Concho Old Town districts replacing them with the new river corridor downtown and cultural districts and that will make more sense when you see the maps and I just described this but the proposed changes on what doesn't require a building permit would include review for things like painting landscaping walls and fences as well as exterior remodeling and restoration as well as reroofing none of those things currently require a building permit and so currently don't get any review you may recall that there was an issue some months back where a downtown business painted the front of their building in bright yellow and green stripes and that caused some concern among the neighboring businesses the businesses right next door didn't like that look it wasn't in keeping with the downtown historic character but under our current ordinances that did not prompt any review and so this would this would change that so briefly what what the changes are that can be now approved by staff instead of having to go to the Commission staff can approve construction under a thousand square feet if it's over a thousand square feet and it has to go to the Commission staff can also approve all signs under fifty square feet as well as the painting landscaping fences and walls as long as they don't include advertising any telecommunications towers that are under 35 feet any construction that's not visible from a public street any temporary structures and food trucks as well so all of those things can come to

[0:15:04] staff and we can review and approve those based on the guidelines without them having to go to the Commission I will add that if there are any questionable things when they come to staff we do have the authority under the ordinance to send it on to the Commission if we're not comfortable approving something we can send it to the committee but as well but anything other than what's shown right there does have to go to the Commission for review and approval before that type of construction can move forward yes ma'am we ask questions as we go along I'm afraid he'll get so far into that yeah back to the previous slide on that second point where it says temporary structures less than one month would that be something while they're doing reconstruction and they have to put up some kind of barrier something is is that what that it could be it could be temporary structures during construction it could be temporary things like a tent for a special event short term things like that where they maybe move in a building and we we already have a permit process for temporary structures that are going to be there less than a month so that's an already established process and so we just said for that process anything going through that process can be approved by staff oftentimes those are things like special events where you know they may come to us a few weeks or a month before the event and there's really not time to go to a commission meeting before an event happens and so again part of the idea of the commission is to review the look of the river corridor in downtown but if something is only going to be there a month or less we think it's less of a concern what it might look like and we think staff could review that thank you John with that said if someone chooses not to come to you what's the penalty because it's one thing to have an ordinance another to say if you don't do it what

[0:17:09] happens varies I mean we could we could keep them from having an event for example or we can issue citations we typically would warn someone first I mean we've we've had instances particularly in the downtown where somebody has done something without going through this process so we notify them sometimes they just didn't know there was a process and you know nine times out of ten once they learn that there's a process they'll go through the proper process if they don't we will just continue whatever enforcement mechanisms we have to make sure that they do come into compliance or that they remove whatever it is that they've done okay question about the roofs review before they replace their roof so if we have a hailstorm they get an insurance claim and we're during the rainy season how long is that is that going to delay a process of getting a new roof on there if a roofer can start the night it shouldn't again mostly that would be well let me answer it differently it depends one of the things that in terms of what you're going to see I think at the next meeting is and I think I have a slide on this is a change to the fees and the process we are proposing a different process if it's a like-for-like replacement so if they have a particular kind of roof on the building and and get hail damage and they want to replace it with the exact same thing that's going to be a simplified process can be approved by staff very quickly that would probably just be you know a day or two at the most however if they're taking an existing building and wanting to change the roof completely then it would have to go through a little bit longer review process to ensure that that new roofing material is consistent with whatever guidelines are in place for that particular location but yeah we that's a example of where we want we're trying

[0:19:14] with this taking things to staff instead of the Commission gives us the ability to prove those things much more quickly and when you set up when we create this you're how quickly are you going to have the items that are very specific in terms of what you can or cannot do just like that roof because it's one thing for us to prove this today then it's going to be what time frame before we understand the limitations or changes or not well those the guidelines that apply to these areas are already in place and the rivercourt or master plan this whole process today is kind of our first step in a multi-step process one of those future steps will be looking at those guidelines and possibly revising them possibly making different standards for the river corridor versus downtown but we do have standards in place that are being used to review any construction project currently and until we make changes to those those will still be in place for these air these new areas okay is that example of the light for like roof right now does it go through the Commission or does it go through staff well a roof wouldn't today because we don't issue permits for roofing and so today they just can do that without any approvals with this change then roofing would be reviewed but the like for like replacement would be the simpler process or a monetary value permit through the city yes it doesn't make sense the like somebody for like for like that's something that will be coming to you at the next meeting a reduced permit fee we were looking at for residential $25 for commercial $50 versus the higher fees for the you know if you're reconstructing something but that's something obviously you all have the ability to I just right now I would challenge aggressively the item that the issue that we would ask somebody to pay

[0:21:17] a fee to replace an existing roof that was held damaged or for some other reason needs to be rebooted mean I just can't I just can't approve a fee for roofing issue I can understand if they're changing from tile to metal but I know can't do that let me ask this question if I may so today's standards the way they're set up means that anybody can do anything they want to to the roof correct correct so in making these changes what we're trying to encourage people to do is to be consistent within some of these districts so that we don't have have somebody put on a roof for our Payne building that's inconsistent with with the rest of the rest of the downtown area or rest of the cultural district area or the river corridor area so having somebody review that to me make sense now I don't I'm not encouraging people to have to have to pay a feed in order to do that but we've got to figure out a way that somebody can review it so that we got consistency so we don't end up with this yellow and green stripe that type building downtown because it wasn't a historic buildings somebody would hit and just painted it the way it was because there's nobody reviewed it so I think the direction we're heading is is correct but we've just got to find that that that fine line that allows us too to do what we need to do without penalizing somebody that needs to replace a roof because of hail damage or that type of that type of issue I think you and I spoke in the last couple of days about the river corridor area

[0:23:20] because I was concerned about residents having to pay that fee in order to paint their building and you indicated to me that that unless they were directly on the river that wouldn't we wouldn't be affecting those in particular individuals is that correct that's right and when we get to the maps you'll see that one of the things we've done is shrink in most places the boundaries of the river corridor to exclude all residential except for those whose properties immediately touch the river and so the current river corridor in place today goes out in some cases quite a few blocks into the surrounding residential neighborhoods that are near the river what this does is shrink that back to only those homes that are immediately adjacent to the river yes yes John I know we're beating this rough thing that I guess my question about all of it is the fees why would we even charge any fees even if they're changing the roof from tile to metal are are we charging those fees basically our philosophy has been with fees is to charge a fee to cover the cost of staff Tom for taking in applications reviewing them against the standards and and so that's the basis for that especially if they're taking you know one type of roofing material to another that takes more review time if it's something that does have to go to the Commission then there's time involved in creating agenda items for the commission taking things to the Commission and presenting and so the way almost all of our fees are calculated is an estimate of the staff time it takes to take a case from application through the approval process and coming up with a fee for that process again the it for a like for like replacement for example that review would be fairly simple and so that's why we would be looking at a very low fee or even even potentially no

[0:25:23] fee you know if the roof is damaged due to no fault of you know just my just desire to change my roofing material or maybe the structure of my roof if it's due to no fault of the owner why would there be anything I'm and I hear what you're saying and I guess that was a rhetorical question so I'm done thank you and it's really up to you all you know if if an awning downtown for example got hit by hail and had to be replaced they would have to get a building permit to reconstruct it and our inspectors would review it and all of that and there would be a fee so it's just basically any time staff is reviewing something we typically charge a fee for that review time so today if my awning is hit by hail I have to come to you to replace it well I guess I should clarify it depends on the extent of the damage if it's mono repairs those typically wouldn't require a permit let's say I have to take the whole awning down and I'm gonna put the same awning back up again why do I have to go ask permission to put up the same awning again if it's already there number one the main the main reason would be we send out inspectors during and after construction to ensure that it's constructed as it's supposed to be with meeting all of the building code standards so that for example the you know it's constructed appropriately and won't collapse or especially awnings that extend over a sidewalk a particular concern there where people are walking under it but basically to make sure it's constructed to code if it was originally constructed to code and I'm just replacing it if you have to take it down and put brand new in then we would want to make sure it's already there I'm just replacing the fabric oh that would be different if I was assuming there were structural changes but if there's no structural changes then my Ani and I'm just replacing the fabric on my awning structures still there no

[0:27:28] that would not require any reviews or permits or fees I think we just have to make sure as you go down the road on this that we really get and better understand exactly what we're asking people to do because and I am the first to say we need to protect our historic district we need to keep that environment historic you can't lose it because you can't get it back if you lose it so we need to protect our historic district it's hugely important and I'm over the past few years we've allowed many things to happen that or not should never have been approved in a historic district the problem is their grandfather's you can't change it and the problem is if you've already approved them then where's the standard because if you allow this to happen why if I want the same thing to happen can you say no to me now did you borrow approve something that should never been approved and and that's that's really more of an issue for the guidelines and the the process that you know the people that you appoint on the design and historic review Commission are the ones that ultimately make those decisions and as I'll get to in a minute we one of the changes here is the appeal process that would allow staff to appeal to Council if we believe that D HRC has made a decision that's not in keeping with the guidelines it would give us the ability to bring that to you and you all could say yeah they made the right decision or no they did not and then it puts it in your hands to make that final decision we already have a book that's about this thick that defines the standards for our historic district and they have not in the past no one has honored that book people just do approve and so we got to make sure that when we do these things that there's some guts to it that you can't approve those things we had guidelines no one paid attention the guidelines because people made sure that the guidelines weren't followed and I want to make sure we've got to protect that historic district that when we do this

[0:29:32] there shouldn't be a lot of movement around on the rules and regs attached a historic district and and obviously that's something that we can discuss when we actually look at amending those guidelines I can tell you the the the trade-off is the more flexibility you give there's flexibility for builders and developers and business owners the more strict you make it or specific you make it you remove that flexibility and so that can be good because you're telling me exactly what you want to see on the other hand you reduce the flexibility that they have to to you know use design creativity so it's a it's kind of a sliding sliding scale yes but I know cities like Fredericksburg which everybody says look how great they are you take a look at New Braunfels comfort Bernie you can tell they've had standards there to maintain the historic value of those districts and you can tell they haven't had a lot of wiggle room and it's what makes people go to those communities today because there's a very strong personality that comes across in those historic districts that's definitely something we can look at when we look at revising those standards for sure move forward as I just actually mentioned this one that it expands the definition of who can appeal the decision right now only the applicant can appeal this would give the staff the ability to appeal to you all if we don't believe the historic commission made a proper decision it also gives an aggrieved individual so a neighbor that thinks it's you know maybe it's detracting from their building letting the building next door do something that person could appeal to you as well as I mentioned also hear this we're looking at a reduced permit fee for the painting the like forelock remodeling and other minor modifications so they don't pay the the full review fee but it would be a lesser fee and as you mentioned it could even be zero for something like I like for like one thing

[0:31:41] I want to point out as we start to look at the maps which are on the next slides the staff and the DHR see recommended set of maps for these boundaries the Planning Commission recommended a different set of maps and so I'll point out those differences staff is actually comfortable with most of the changes recommended by the Planning Commission but I'll point out a couple of differences where we're looking for you all to give us that direction on which ones you actually would like to see adopted this is the overall boundary and I'll briefly touch on this the red is the the red hash as you can see in here are the existing River corridor the thick red boundary you can see as the New River corridor so you can see in some of these areas where we've reduced that boundary you can also see the proposed I'm sorry and this map is just the river corridor so the blue areas that you can see from underneath are the ones that are going away so a little bit here here and these are mostly those residential areas that I mentioned removing if they're not directly adjacent to the river and as you'll note when you say directly adjacent to the river what's the this the number of feet when is it like 200 feet from the river or is it 100 feet from the river is it 50 feet from the if the property touches the the river then it's in the district property mean a building or the property line okay if the property line of the property touches the river then it's in the district if the property boundary does not touch the river then it's not in the district is the way we we reviewed that so the home could could be a hundred feet back from the river but if the property the home sits on touches the river then it's inside but you'll recall from a minute ago if things that aren't visible from the street or the river have a different review a lesser review and so we hold it to a higher standard if it can be seen from a street

[0:33:43] or if it can be seen from the river and these are I have a few zoom in maps just so we can see the river corridor a little bit closer I'm going to go through these fairly quickly but these are here in case you have questions and these make it a little bit easier to see those particular areas so let me just ask previously it was presented to the Planning Commission that the New River Quarter would get would take in a lot of the property that are owned by people on Oak Crest oval road yes and so this is no longer part of this that's right and you'll see in just a second on that map I'll point out exactly how that was affected and that's one of those issues that are the areas that the staff is comfortable with the Planning Commission recommendation to remove that particular area again you can see a lot of these residential areas that were removed everything you see in blue would no longer be in the river corridor now this area is unique it won't be in the river corridor but that's part of that was what will be in the new downtown district you'll see on a future map again just following along the river through downtown a few more residential areas that you can see that were removed and then out to continuing out this is one area I'll point out that staff had recommended including all of this area and you can see some areas down here that we had recommended including much of that is city-owned property but not all of it but the Planning Commission's recommendation was to keep this smaller red area that is the current River corridor and we're comfortable with that in this area so we're recommending the same thing as the Planning Commission now it used to be that concho Avenue was part of the river corridor because of its historic value being the first Street in the city of San Angelo so when you take concho Street concho Avenue out of the river Quarter and put it into the downtown district there's reasons to

[0:35:46] believe that those businesses on concho Avenue would have higher levels because it used to be in the river corridor and very very controlled to preserve the historic quality yes and again today these creating these separate districts the same standards will apply until we get to the point of creating the new standards but as of today moving from the river corridor to the downtown for that Street from a standards perspective won't make any change in terms of the review you have to protect the historic value right but again remember that any building that's zoned historic already has a higher standard we have the what I would call the river corridor standards that will still apply to all three of these new districts that is a high standard but not as high as the standard for historic zone properties those are even in higher standard that have to keep with the historic character of the building if they're not his listed as a historic building and the building next to it is not a historic building you want to make sure that that whole corridor remains very historic and appeal right and that's one of the things that the guidelines mention and that the Commission has looked at in the past particularly for particular blocks like Chadbourne and concho okay and then the last area here is the one you brought up staff had originally recommended expanding the river corridor to include this area along the river I will point out that it did not include those homes along old Crystal Road although those folks did get a notification because they're within 250 feet and and by law we have to notify everyone within 250 feet of a rezoning but it did affect some of the properties you know you can see property adjacent to them along the river was included but again the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to end the boundary at there at Avenue L and so everything

[0:37:49] south of there will be excluded and staff and Planning Commission are recommending that change so that none of that area will be affected if you approve this today yes he's right there on that some said that that is specifically in my district so just to be clear that you talked the painting structure they will that none of that at all will apply to the area you just circle there since that has been now removed that's correct if you approve this as it's being presented today the boundary of that river corridor will and there's house and right so I was reading through the draft ordinance and I didn't see it mentioned in there that how will it be noted so that 20 years from now this hadn't been updated by that point how will it be noted that's where it stops part of what you are considering today is adoption of these boundaries and so in the boundary map that will be in the actual ordinance that boundary will be drawn at Avenue L and so what you're seeing here this red line will actually be erased in fact if you approve it that way today the maps you'll see in the ordinance on second reading will exclude that area completely not even have that encircled a dog I mean I'm assuming that let's say 20 years down the road another council could choose to I could change what we've just decided to do so we have to know that when we approve it it is proved with this council in this mentality that's correct yes but there will be no question five years from now what those boundaries are okay I just want to ask you do we have these buildings right now that are gonna have to update or get with if we were to approve this or there's some buildings that I have to get in come up to this ordinance or do you leave those buildings along no this does not require any buildings to do anything unless

[0:39:51] they're wanting to make improvements so unless they're wanting to change this doesn't require them to do anything so that was the river corridor boundary so the next one is the creation of a new downtown overlay you can see this purple line is the staff and DHR see recommended boundary so it would take the downtown area beyond what is currently in the river corridor which is this smaller area and expand it over to Bryant over just a little past Main Street and then up to the freeway what the Planning Commission recommendation was is to only include this area that is already in the river corridor and so really the one of the questions before you today is do we include this additional area in the new downtown district or only that core of downtown I think part of the question mark here is it's hard to say yes or no on this if you don't know what the rules and regulations are going to be on that because I truly believe that there's a part of downtown that needs to be looked at separately from that big broad map and so if we approve it as this is with the bigger territory if we created started creating standards for this I would say there's some buildings that I don't think should have the higher level of standards at the buildings on concho Avenue and Chadbourne Street have and so John can you help us maybe with the thinking of the Commission just to inform us yeah and actually I'll start with with staff and the D HRC's thinking is our comprehensive plan that was adopted for the city includes roughly this larger area as what's called the downtown and so even though all of it doesn't currently feel like downtown it was the area envisioned to continue to develop like a downtown and so that's the reason we proposed expanding it to that so if

[0:41:56] you know as downtown expands over the next 10 20 30 years that these other areas will continue to develop similarly and I think the Planning Commission's thinking was this area really is the core of downtown much of these areas there's warehouse top areas there's more suburban type commercial areas along Bryant that shouldn't necessarily have to meet the same standards now when I say same standards I think that the D HRC and our guidelines have one of the things they look at is context so for example if something comes in here by McDonald's they hold that to a very different standard than something that's coming in on concho so our current guidelines talk a lot about context and relationship to surrounding buildings in the surrounding area such that you can make a different decision so if building coming in up here is not going to have to meet the same standards as something going in on saved South chat or North Chadbourne so the guidelines would determine what you will or won't have to do within that district so if we approve the larger district then we're also basically saying that different guidelines will approve depending on where your building is within that overlay map yes and as we change the guidelines in the future that can even get more specific it could be so specific in fact that we could designate well we could even designate a historic district for kind of the the central core of downtown that has even higher standards but even our guidelines that we have today because of that that is the dimensions in there of context and and looking at the surroundings we already have things in place that that allow us to differentiate say concho from you know Bryant over here in the guidelines so today are we approving the larger map here or the smaller map here

[0:43:59] well it's up to you what comes to you from a Planning Commission is the smaller map staff is still recommending the larger map so as part of your your motion we would want to hear from you which of those two options you want to see because I think people are even surprised how much downtown is building and growing so we want to be able to protect the entity with different guidelines for the smaller M districts that are more historic versus otherwise okay and then finally the cultural overlay and you can see the areas in yellow are the sort of orangish areas like this area those are the areas that already have historic overlay zoning the yellow properties are city-owned properties and so you can see the Planning Commission's recommendation was basically only to include those core areas that are either city owned or are already historically zoned they wanted to keep this cultural new cultural district smaller staff and D HRC and based on some input from the museum and their own they have their own cultural district it's actually even larger than this but they preferred to see the larger green boundary here to include a little bit larger area so that's another one we'd like your input on it's confusing if we've art because we've already approved a cultural district how it presented some time ago so if we already have a cultural district already approved this would change the existing cultural district because I don't think you can have a Howard Taylor cultural district and then a John James cultural district and then as somebody else's cultural district I think we got to have a cultural district period well and I'll tell you that's exactly the argument that Howard made at both the D HRC and the Planning Commission we even raised the possibility of calling this something different because no we can't have cultural district one cultural district

[0:46:02] two calls heuristic 17 we can't have a cultural district let's not make this complicated and I think the the concern again of the Planning Commission was similar to the downtown they wanted to keep it more tightly focused and if we went to what you might call the Howard Taylor cultural district you know it would extend a little bit farther this way I can't remember in this direction if it went any farther and it may have included a little bit down here as well now it all is based off of guidelines because if you use the original cultural district approved by previous council then one would say what are the standards that were approved with that old cultural district versus what you would be proposing now because there's no reason to change the old cultural district you can create tighter guidelines on a smaller version of it but I don't like having 2 or 3 options yes Harry I just want to make sure that I have a clarification because the cultural district that I think you're referring to mayor is the one that came from the from the Commission that did this about 6 or 7 years ago that showed that full cultural district all the way from the eastern edge of the fork all the way over to including the visitor center I believe how far north and south it went I'm not sure I know what North they went to the river south out a month sure but that whole that whole district was actually presented as Brenda indicated to the previous Council and the council accepted that cultural district report now whether they whether they took that and put it into some type of map for the city I'm not sure but they did accept that particular report during that timeframe so you know to Brenda's point I think we we need to

[0:48:06] look at that if we're going to kind of start making standards for the cultural district I think we need to be in an alignment with that particular report that was done six or seven years ago however long ago was before all of us were up here before you were in that particular position but the report is out there and it was sitting it was accepted by previous council so and I think we need to really look at this particular area and make sure that we're in alignment with that and I will say that we're we have that report and are aware of it and as I mentioned Howard spoke at the previous meetings the DHR see the Commission and the Planning Commission were both pretty adamant that they believed that that was too large of an area to apply this sort of development review begin that can change based off of when you do the sure things that go with it in this this area has these standards if she goes three or four blocks or six or seven blocks out east west north or south the standards can change but on just like the downtown so there was a lot of time and effort put into that Commission report on creating this cultural district and I don't want to change that cultural district unless somebody brings back to the table what was presented at that point in time as the cultural district and we understand the philosophy with it so at this point from from me from my perspective we must maintain the old cultural district and honor that because someone spent time and money on that and we could we could definitely bring that back for consideration I will say that because of the way these have been noticed in the newspaper and the notices sent out to the properties you can't actually expand the boundaries today you could adopt either one of these areas today and then we could bring back an additional expansion of that boundary to make it coincide with that other cultural

[0:50:08] district but we would have to bring that back as a separate item and you have a question a bit more clarification well I think we can one two and three right can we vote on one and two and in table that number three so we can vote on the river corridor and the downtown and wait to bring back the culture overlay one because I do that okay a little bit of difference on one two and three to where all three need a little bit more clarification if I don't think the clarification is in what we do in other words you approve the district and then they've got to come back to us and say these are the rules and regulations at that point in time you can control the rules and regulations based off the area or not area Howard's Howard's district and if I'm right was bigger than the yes lying Green Line is his the Green Line on there the light green no the the green here is the staff recommendation and D HRC recommendation of this zoning cultural district but the Howard district it definitely extends further this way and maybe further south and east as well let's table the cultural overlay well we can take a vote on whether we want the culture overlay so just continue and then we'll come back into motion and then the motion will determine what we do Billy did you have a question yes you know this is the first time or yesterday was the first time I started hearing it presented in this way so I'm a little bit I guess I need a summary of what your there okay that we consider voting on okay are you through with let me just see how much more we have to Breeze in on it and then we'll talk and open I'm even now have lost some of the first items he was going through on what would be required in what district such as the questions we were having about the roofing and the painting is that only the downtown district or is that the downtown and cultural so it's it's a lot

[0:52:11] of information to absorb so okay I mean I would like to have a summary on what we would be voting on all right let's continue and then I think I think I'm almost to the end here that was the cultural district and so our recommendation is to approve these text amendments as I've indicated in answer to that question currently even though we're creating three separate districts that's sort of in anticipation of in the future having separate standards but if you approve this today the standards will be the same throughout all three districts just like now this the River Court or standards apply throughout this whole area the separating them into three districts is basically so that in the future we can create different standards for each district but as of today the same standards will apply in all three that's why I think it's good to approve the concept of breaking it into three then they will start to develop different standards for each area unlike today the same standard exists whether you're on Bryant Boulevard or the Houston heart as it does if you're over off of Avenue L on those standards that would apply or the existing standards that we apply in the river corridor today yes with the exception of the few changes I mentioned like adding painting and some of that stuff but yeah all the standards that apply today will continue to apply with no differences well if I understand it the downtown overlay we would be voting on whether to expand that or not expand it kind of like the cultural district right so if if I have an issue with that part of it are you what do you I don't understand how we can vote on a part of it I might suggest you could you could on the things that there may be some disagreement like those boundaries you could vote on those separately correct you could first vote on whether you know

[0:54:16] which downtown district you want you could then vote on the cultural district or vote to table that piece of it then you could vote on the rest that I haven't at least I haven't heard any disagreement on any of the rest of it so I think you could we can vote on the river corridor the downtown in the cultural district the difference on the culture disick and the downtown one is as the downtown one used to be in the river corridor as an entity you would separate that but it was already there anyway the cultural district the issue is because there was a commission and a whole presentation before on the cultural district and I just think we need to understand what was written and done on that and why it was expanded that way and I'm confused about that part of my maze on first reading this is the first reading anyway you can you can approve as far as a concept that you're that you're looking at that you do agree that there's three three overlays at this point when we come back next time around we can have that delineated as far as the Howard portion of it and also what we're recommending and we can actually summarize that as well to make sure there's clarity on that so at this point if you did approve it on first reading you still have to come back at second reading and make sure that it has your approval on the way it's going to be broken up we could approve the breaking up into three districts today on second reading we would pull it off of the consent agenda and put it back on the regular agenda and on that regular agenda we would have further discussion on boundaries exactly what the boundaries could be so today is just breaking it into three districts and we'll have a motion if someone would make that motion to approve three districts then the actual definition of that district in terms of territory and/or specifics would pull it off of consent agenda put it on regular agenda and further discussion but this at least gives them the opportunity to fine tune those areas

[0:56:20] because we've now done told him you can have three areas but we haven't told him what those areas are going to be yet all right weary we can also direct staff to just put that on the regular agenda they don't need to put it on a consent agenda and so as we go forward with that and I would I would pull that report from Howard and look at those boundaries and I would suggest that that would be what we make the cultural district today I'm comfortable with what the other other districts the way they're set up that with the expansion of the downtown to include all the way to Houston heart and all the way to mainstream since that was right directly in the middle of my district I think that's appropriate to do that yes Brian I just wanted to note that in order to send out extra notices additional notices that might be required the second reading might not be on the next council medium it might be on the second one yeah in August which which is fine gives us more time all right so you want to continue with your two and three I don't think I allowed you to continue at two and three again this is just that summary of the three and I'll just so there's not confusion these one two and three don't exactly correspond to the one two and three in the order and agenda because those were split up differently for some legal reasons and separate ordinances but again two is revising the processes and standards including some of that ordinance clean up and then rezoning the properties this technically is a rezoning that has to meet the standards of the state law for rezoning okay so today we're simply going to have a motion and a vote on creating three districts we are not going to do and approve what two and three are on this one because until we define what the boundaries are three doesn't apply anyway well you're still approving it on first reading because that that's required to take it to second reading okay I guess I would I would ask if if there

[0:58:23] is a consensus on the downtown and there may not be but if your motion could include which of the two options for downtown that would help us prepare the ordinance for second reading okay then what I'm going to do is go ahead and make a motion to approve the three districts and and approve the boundaries as presented on the River corridor and the enlarged downtown corridor and we are not going to approve the cultural fair boundaries right I guess I would suggest rather than saying we're not going to approve it is that you approve it on first reading for future discussion on second reading okay do we have public comment I mean man like in your motion what we have been presented I want to clarify one more time John I'm beating this to death but when when it's in the mayor's motion approved as presented does that then exclude from the river corridor everything south of Avenue L yes it does okay so the motion is to approve the three different districts and the maps as attached as presented today yes the way I would phrase it is as recommended by the Planning Commission with the exception of including the full downtown as recommended by the D HRC that's my motion and is there public comment morning counsel and Kendall Hirschfeld it's been about five years since I was sitting up there and and actually was part of the council that approved the creation of the D HRC and and combining of the Historic Preservation Commission

[1:00:29] the river corridor so it made life easier that was the concept and the principle of what happened and why we did that at the time and Mayor you were actually down here representing downtown San Angelo in support of some of the creation of these things I still believe the concept of that is exactly right and how it should be the problem is that the Devils in the details and the problem is that you know that as we're learning more and we dig through all of these papers when it was presented to the Planning Commission which was that was the first time I had heard about this that it didn't come out until Friday and so we didn't get I didn't get to see all the details of again the devil that the details of what all these were and mr. James actually said that rules and regulations are not changing other than moving some to administrative that's what he stated I've watched that in the video again last night well that's not correct that is not how it was presented to the Planning Commission so that's not how the Planning Commission approved and understood that nor were any fees ever discussed and then also I have to say in disagreement with mr. James that that Howard Taylor was not in full support of the Commission that was that the plan was there because again he was concerned about the devil and the details as was Tom early to which to people or have a lot of real estate in that cultural district so I think we we have to be very very careful that as we expand things I'm not in disagreement that we have to keep the historic value of things but you're expanding this downtown area into such a large area of residential old buildings old where houses old things that I mean it's going to take to get to some of these standards that as of today once you once you approve this and move to the second

[1:02:35] reading that now all of a sudden some of these old warehouses that are out there off of 5th Street and 4th Street and all that kind of stuff guess what if they want to paint their building they're gonna have to go apply for permit pay some more money for that and everything like that as it is today ok and that's just an added burden that is going to that I believe will slow down you know the increase the improved improvements for the downtown and the cultural area I'm a I'm a huge supporter of improving the downtown I believed in the Downtown Development Commission I think that's all gone in a way now but that was a big deal where we could do some major major things to the downtown area and so I'm a huge fan and proponent of the downtown you just have to be very very very careful with what you do it's I've heard it before that you know we have to vote on it and then we'll figure out what we're going to do with it well that's scary that is extremely scary we need to know what some of these standards and guidelines are are going to be in place and all that ties back to I believe that our current DHR see in his current structure and I said this at the Planning Commission way over steps their bounds because everything that that that happens where was my note that the consistency in design is truly an arbitrary interpretation what I believe it looks good and what I believe is right could be different than what you believe is right so now it's whoever you place up there on that Commission now all of a sudden gets to say nope I don't want everyone to have pink doors and that's what it needs to be because everyone's got to have pink doors well that's an arbitrary decision that now you're forcing something on me that is not proper and not not out there and I know that there's a

[1:04:41] process for appeal but every time that we do that we're creating more hindrance more hassle more dollars more impact on investors on developers on people that want to take some of these old buildings and convert them over and make them useful and and put money back into this economy because that's what's going to build this tax base and that's what's going to build our downtown area is individual companies individual people individuals coming forward with the actual cash and wanting to invest into our downtown so please be careful what you're asking for because you just might get in far more than what you're really expecting so I think you have to be really careful look at the details we need to understand some of these details far more and I don't know how many people have read all these things but there's a whole lot that is now new things that businesses in the the current downtown area will not be able to do and will have to go through and take more steps and times and now added fees so just another tax on all of us so thank you thank you for the public comment after being away a long time meeting my name is Steve Hampton and I want to agree with Kendall I appreciate what he very much what he said we vote as a Republican community and Republicans recited their meetings we believe in small government and that's what we need

[1:06:43] this reaching extending boundaries and and what have you and puts hardship on on property owners takes away their rights and lessens their control over over their property and this is what we need to hold and be very diligent about holding that's all I have to say I think let me just repeat that the existing downtown the DHR see the existing territory that that Commission has overseen is in fact the same territory right now as in these maps we're not expanding from the D HRC's Maps is that correct just asking for clarification if you see on this map what the D HRC reviews today is this smaller blue area so again what we had recommended is including the larger area that's in the area designated for downtown in the comprehensive plan but not currently subject to any development review I'm also going to say that when we approve that if we approve these three areas what we are not approving at this point in time is what the if you will rules and regulations attached to these are so all were doing is approving a district we're not approving that those people who are up on Houston Hart have to live with the same standards that those people in concho Avenue live with well they would be subject to D HRC review their review and it they would they would currently have to comply with the rivercourt or design guidelines which is often confusing to people because the river corridor design guidelines of today don't just relate to the river they also relate to historic downtown and the larger downtown

[1:08:47] but but yes so anything you see in white here within that area if you approve this would become subject to review that they're not subject to today having said that you know we talk about painting if a warehouse on Houston Hart wanted to repaint we're talking about a 50 dollar application fee and a review process that would likely take two days or less so I think I would also say that we've had hundreds of thousands of dollars of development in the downtown and River corridor just in the past year all of those have come through the D HRC process and I would dare say that the vast majority of those folks have would say positive things about that review process I don't think with some exceptions most of them don't think it's an onerous process that is making them jump through too many hoops question kind of relating to the consistency so I'm looking in this map where the new Purple Line is extending so as an example you know Shannon Hospital is ever-changing they're in construction all the time now they're going to be subject to any signage that they want to put there Shannon green on and then the discretion of if that Shannon green meets the historic downtown area is that true their main facility is already in this area and they've they've gone through this review has it changed for them and well and they have them I know looking at the e one two three four five large blocks outside of the striped purple is that not Shannon it is within Imanol it's in the new dark purple line extending out towards Main Street yes part of Shannon is part of their facilities are in and part of them are out I will say they are in a planned development district that already has a review process and they have a signed

[1:10:51] plan for their entire campus that has already been reviewed and approved I would be shocked if if no staff would would approve those and most of the many of those signs would would be staff reviewed if they went to the D HRC I can't believe that they would not approve those signs they're already part of an approved signed plan then we are putting it into the discretion of those members up on that board order they like it or not the one thing also John is that most of that was all in the river corridor for instance city hall was in the sign review portion of the river corridor so we were already having to meet that standard as they were because it was in the river corridor all he did was change it to downtown district it's not specifically the river corridor anymore and that had been in place for a long time I would remind you that the any of that is appealable so let's say that I get the impression that people are suggesting that the D HRC is somehow gone rogue and approving things they either approving things they shouldn't or not approving things they should those those are all appealable to you or under this new ordinance will be appealable to you so if you disagree with that you could you could not only overrule the D HRC you could send back direction to them that hey this was a wrong decision and we we think you made an incorrect decision and hopefully guide them better in the future Billie you had a question or comment I do mayor originally when you stated your motion or you were explaining it it was just that we are going to vote on the three districts period only and none of the modifications none of the expansions but now as I understand it the motion is to include the recommendation of the expansion of downtown district not the cultural fair district correct okay so

[1:13:01] I guess I'll ask one more time what Lane asked can we table this until we have time to digest it better because I don't know the gentleman's name out there that spoke but anyway it you know it caused me to have you know some additional I guess questions and needing clarification so I'm just asking if we can consider tabling this but let me also address Kendall's comments on coloration because there are some well-defined colorations in fact that the DA char C had in their booklet to follow and they're very acceptable colors based off of Airy Texas State Historic Commission they weren't arbitrary colors what we did was approve things outside those colorations that have not should not be approved in a historic district and if you look at that way again I go back to everyone talks about New Braunfels Fredericksburg Bernie Comfort all of those have lived within a traditional historic district color palette we're and and that helps take the arbitrary I like pink out of the conversation or I like neon yellow out of the conversation because it defines it as most historic districts are defined that being said we have voted outside that context even though the previous councils approved those documents that said these are the documents of which you will approve in the historic district and we haven't lived with that and that's created part of the problem yes you make Hindle comment Hirschfeld again I understand that I've seen those standards too and I don't disagree with a lot of the architecture that's out there however with now with this expanded downtown area you're including buildings and homes and everything that wouldn't traditionally be concho street okay two-week street and such like that and

[1:15:05] so now you're creating standards that you're creating again these guidelines that any in any construction of any part of any structure canopy or awning visible from a public right-of-way and that goes for any house that goes for anything that is in that area period and if they want to paint their house period in that anyone in that area they have to pay a fee and go get approval for that and it has to meet now you've got some houses over there that aren't necessarily you know of the caliber that we you know income anyway but it's they could be in the future and so this could always be expanded there's I'm not disagreeing with the current boundaries that they are today I don't disagree with that I voted for that five years ago and I would vote for that again it's the expanded territory and it's the expanded regulations that I have a problem with well and what we were sorry I think what we were talking about and John you can verify this but what we said today we are approving only the territory we are not approving any regs any fees any anything that goes with that is that correct because we were not if in fact we thought we were if we thought we were approving some of the regs and fees then I don't think anyone will support the motion because I don't think we thought we were approving fees there's nothing on here about fees today that's something we were going to bring back my understanding was you were approving all of the recommendations for today so that we could be discussed more on second reading then what I think I hear counsel saying is because there's a motion a second on the floor we have to vote on it and before we can table it is that correct it's it's up to you you could remove your motion and your second and

[1:17:08] then you could decide to table it and you could table the backings concession and really instead of using the language of table just going into a little bit of parliamentary stuff if we could just say postpone it to a future meaning well actually since there is a zoning aspect of this we we actually do need it to be tabled to a specific date if we don't do that then we'll have to send out was it 2000 we had to send out 2,000 notifications for all of the people affected by this if you table it to a specific date we won't have to do that again to a certain date I'm going to ask that we postpone this to the second meeting in August that should give people four weeks or so to really look into this new change in emotion merits I said they didn't have to change the motion I could just postpone well yeah you're just removing your motion by I removed my motion and a second Harry do you remove your second I do okay at this point the motion ii have been removed and we are going to postpone the conversation on this item until the second meeting in August Daniel Mayer yes believe I could I think we're having four meetings in August two of them are budget meetings they're not regular council meeting so I'm suggesting we're second council meeting we can do more public comment if you would like sure come on up what can I do that since we've yep come on up good morning mayor and members of the council thank you for your service I know you deal with lots and lots of issues Brown I've lived in San Angelo for 36 years and I think this whole thing should go back to the planning department I think it's just not ready for primetime and

[1:19:13] and this is a bureaucratic dream I mean all the potential lines and blanks that have to be filled in going forward how many meetings in mind all these folks can have to come to you Planning Commission City Council to oppose this stuff I mean and it's been extremely confusing on this particular set of rules there were like three different considerations by the Planning Commission and I got a notice sent out by certified mail because I'm a landowner and I came to the meeting it said they're looking at creating three districts and they're looking at development standards well I showed up to say I don't like these development standards if I want to paint my house I have to get permission and approval of the color I want to paint my little brick building downtown have to do that and they said oh we proved that last month all we're talking about today is the districts well that's not what the notice said but that's what they did and and I didn't write y'all a letter about this because I couldn't figure out from the agenda what the specific ordinance was and I talked to John about that this morning is on this ordinance 212 there were two versions of it on your website on the agenda items for today's meeting one said that that painting and reroofing is going to be considered as an activity which is reviewed the other one said those things are going to be considered work which is reviewed either way they're now being reviewed when it was before the Planning Commission that was saying that its construction so it's a moving target and it's very frustrating to try and even address this but I own a house behind Fort Concho on the South concho River and I've been in the river corridor the whole time I've owned it owned two little brick buildings on South herbing across from the library office buildings so that's all in going to be subject to

[1:21:16] this painting and re-roofing and these other regulations and as I read this paragraph one and on the agenda it includes development standards establishing standards for development and I think that includes this painting business and the reroofing if I want to paint the rafters on one side of my house I have to pay a fee which I thought was a hundred ninety five dollars and submit an application from from a house on Baker Street and everybody else on Baker Street apparently is gonna have to do the same thing if you're on the Riverside I think that's a gross infringement of property rights and I really think residences should just be wholesale excluded I'm glad the folks on us Chris dovell Road God exempted but I wish they were here to argue with me about why houses shouldn't be covered by this and even on businesses if you're not really in the historic area you have to get approval of the color of your paint and and pay a fee and do an application I think I think this is a gross overreaction to a small problem in the historic area concho - it Chadbourne I hear the the reasons for protecting that but by the library you're over on Baker Street going to Houston heart with all this goodness gracious that this is a bureaucratic dream it's intentional or not it's a power grab by the planning department it's a huge tax on everybody that wants to paint you're going to discourage some people from painting who wants to go through all this just just to repaint you're gonna slow down the painting on the houses if I want to reroute my house originally had Spanish style before I owned it then the owner replaced it with

[1:23:20] asphalt shingles in 95 when we had the big storm when I go to replace that am I going to be totaled that originally had tiles on you got to spend thirty thousand extra dollars and put tiles back on there I would if I could but I don't know if I'll be able to do that one building was painted green and yellow and apparently the problem was handled I don't know the details but apparently that's why we have this huge plan and all these new rules so many of which are undefined I just think this is is very dangerous and is an overreaction it's been hurried through and I really would ask you just to reject the whole thing and I think it's it violates property rights again in the historic area protect that but this is just way way beyond anything about the historic area and I think you mark be a little more careful thank you thank you very much any further public comment I'm reaching I'm lived in cities all my life and I agree with mr. Brown that this is an overreach it's trying for us to become California or the People's Republic of Austin it takes so long to do anything as written this would have and I've heard the fees mentioned of a hundred ninety five dollars for an application for appropriateness and either 45 or 60 days in order to get that approved you know if my house needs painting I want to paint it if my roof needs to be removed I want to re roof it and this is this is ridiculous overeaten the next thing that's going to happen if this goes is we're gonna have all these applications in and it's going to overwhelm the Planning Manager okay well we need an assistant planning manager just to

[1:25:23] handle these things it's going to be another expansion of city government and where is 195 go if it's 195 it's going to go to the city to pay the salaries of all these people you know I think it's it's ridiculous it's an overreach I noticed that in the minutes of the Planning Commission that Connelly Brooks was trying to whittle down the area that it was affected because it was enormous when they first started this I think it needs to be whittled back down I think the consideration of the fees needs to be looked at again and this whole thing needs to go back Thank You Reid do I have further public comment I want to thank everybody who came up and spoke during the public comment section session at this point because I think you opened the eyes and gave us a lot to think about and to consider so that's a reasonably a public comment so that you can broaden our minds and make sure we thought through every angle and so as noted we have postponed this to the second meeting in August I'm sorry I don't have that date but I might have somebody look that up for me just to be clear the 21st of August we will have this item back on the agenda and we'll spend a lot of time and effort working on it before it comes back here so again thank you thank you for broaden our minds and thank you for making us some see a bigger broader picture it's greatly appreciated we will go on to item B consider resolution of public hearing approving the 2018 annual action plan for use of CDBG and home grant funds and authorizing city manager to execute the applications required certifications related documents an annual funding agreement for the

[1:27:26] allocation of six hundred ninety nine thousand eight hundred twenty two dollars of CDBG and three hundred thirty eight thousand four hundred ninety five home grant funds and a fifty fifty $5,000 in program income Bobby Orr on the mayor council the annual action plan is our petition for our CDBG and home grant funds for the year it's also the last opportunity for citizens to make comments on those allocations it is an annual HUD requirement to do the 15th of August the plan certifies that we're adherent to all the federal requirements such as Fair Housing anti-discrimination maintaining a drug-free environment it also addresses some very key interest items such as housing for the homeless special needs barriers for formal housing that base paint to name a few eivol most importantly the plan documents the city's projects the allocations and the expenditures that council approved last month we did advertise standard times we make copies available throughout the city and a reminder to council that the two major changes from last year is the return of the neighborhood blitz and the reduction of the homeless prevention program and we're asking the castle to approve the plan as written and I believe you all have copies of it does counsel have a question or comment for Bob with no questions or comments do I have a motion do we have public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes 6 0 item C consider resolution enacting drought level 1 of the city's water conservation drought contingency plan Allison Council today we're going to be talking about drought

[1:29:29] level and where we are in terms of months of water supply I want to start by looking at these maps that are provided by TCEQ and looking at the entire state of Texas and where we are with drought these are specifically looking at soul conditions and rainfall and not specifically surface water levels then I'll get to that here in a second but you can see we're not near as bad as we were in 2011 which is shown on the left but we are seeing parts of the state and in our region start to get into those darker shades so the more extreme drought conditions so this is where the state of Texas looks in terms of surface water supplies as you can see the eastern part of the state is has been blessed with fuller reservoirs than we are in this location which is holmgren County so across the state reservoirs are 79.1 percent full but if we look at our local reservoirs we range from 7 percent up to 81 percent with Lake Nass worthy so I'll kind of step through these and these are volumes as July 15th Oh HIV is at 15% capacity which is 80 mm plus acre feet and I want to make sure it's been stated before that IV is shared between three entities so we get a third of that well that's not correct our contract is for sixteen point five four percent of IV and so we can't just take that number and divide by three OSI Fisher is sitting at seven percent with the combined storage of the South Pole in the North Pole at nine percent and then Lake Nazareth II while it's at a higher percentage we also know the volume of water in Lake now is where the isn't near as great as some of the larger reservoirs Allison Spence is that not a part of our because we don't have a conveyance system from Spence to our treatment facility that is usable I do

[1:31:33] not put that in the calculations thank you so I want to kind of go through how I how we calculate the months of water supply Oh HIV is the first step in the calculation and that number is provided by CR MWD they do that there they do there like projections surface water projections twice a year so January and July I actually received updated numbers from CRM WD yesterday which I will talk about some more here in a minute but they provide those on a six month rotation to the city both the CRM WD and the city's calculations assume a worst case scenario of no inflow so it doesn't we don't anticipate a rainfall or stream runoff into Twin Buttes and those type of things because that we're taking the worst case in in respect to that we do assume a 1.5 million gallons worth of chicory water being brought into our daily use and then one of the biggest I guess formulas to the spreadsheet is a 5-year average of evaporations from Texas Water Development Board they put out these evaporations reports annually right now the five-year average is approximately 67 inches of evaporation a year so a little over 5.6 feet but just to give you an example the 2011 evaporation that the Texas Water Development Board calculated was 84 inches whereas 2016 where we saw a lot of rainfall we still had 62 inches of evaporation in our area and so text Water Development Board is it's not evaporation across the state of Texas it is specific to our region that they provide these numbers to so this is where we get the 25 months as of July 1st so see mwd has predicted Ivey to go

[1:33:38] to September of 2019 prior to yesterday it was August of 2019 but even with that one month extension from CRM wd4 IV with the evaporation that we see off OC Fisher Twin Buttes and Lake Nazareth II it still doesn't gain us the full month in the end we still as of July 1st it at 25 months and so you'll see that as we we would be on HIV for another 15 months and then at that point we would switch to the OC Fisher reservoir from the evaporation we've lost an OC Fisher during that time we will have three months of water supply from that reservoir and then as we switch to the Twin Buttes in Lake Nazareth II we would have seven months of supply from that from those surface water sources so what is drought level one restrictions look like during the period of April through October outdoor watering is allowed once every seven days so when this would go into effect August first we would still be or we would change to once a week water and whereas we are at twice a week watering and not between the hours of noon to 6:00 in November if we are still in drought level one and receive no rainfall by then outdoor watering would be changed to once every 14 days so once every two weeks and still not between the hours of noon six during draw level one golf course greens can be watered daily and residents and customers can still apply for a new landscape variance during drought level one the rates do change when we go into drought level one they are assessed to the volumetric portion of the rates so the base rate for the meters does not change but the volumetric rates do so for the residential usage if a customer still uses between zero to two thousand gallons there will see no change on their bill

[1:35:39] it's not until you get to the three thousand to five thousand gallon range that we start to see those volumetric rates increase so for three thousand to fifteen thousand we're looking at a five percent increase to just those rates sixteen to thirty nine thousand gallons a month let's receive a ten percent increase and if you use over 39,000 in those tiered rates you're looking at a twenty percent increase commercial or non-residential entities will see a five percent increase on their volumetric rates and landscape rates would receive a ten percent increase and then there's no increase on fire hydrant uses and untreated water with that I the recommendation from staff is to approve and support a resolution to enter drought level one as of August 1st 2018 Alice and I have a couple of questions one is we show the chicory aquifer only 1.5 million gallons a day yes what is our what is our rights in terms of what we can pull out Hickory aquifer right now I think the way I'd answer that is we have the ability to pump and treat 8 million gallons of water a day which isn't our full rights at this moment but we are limited with the terms in terms of pumping and treatment capabilities so as of today we can pump and treat 8 million gallons of water so why isn't that in the calculation the reason that's not in the calculation is because we want to keep babe we want to continue to bank water as much as possible the chicory is our lifeline in the event that we get down to drought level three and have to use these local reservoirs more so the other side of that is the chicory is a more expensive water source and so we want to utilize the cheaper treatment sources which are surface water sources and if we don't use the surface water that we have we

[1:37:43] will lose it to evaporation so operationally we want to use as much surface water as we can so that we don't lose it to evaporation and I respect the analysis of surface water and why we want to use it the question mark is why aren't we using the calculation of the 8 million that we have the right to pump and to treat as part of the strategy because you do have that right when we calculate drought it's based off a water supply right correct and that water supply exists correct so why don't we use that in the calculation of determining whether we need to go into drought level one because I think if you assume or if you utilize the 8 million let's say the 8 million gallons that we can pump and treat then the how that affects the calculation is that we would use less surface water and so it it's a it's a balancing act between no I'm not saying you're going to use it I'm saying this is the calculation I'm not saying you need to use it but when you calculate the drought level you have to calculate the total availability of water of which there's 8 million gallons of water available so it's a matter of not necessarily using it but it's an issue in terms of calculating your months of supply that's my one question and then my second question is why do we increase the rates of water because we're already telling people you can only water once a week so we've already made them make a decision about watering a week so why is that once a week now expected you're expected to pay more when your overall using less we still have customers that will exceed these 39 thousand gallons even during a drought level so these increased rates are too

[1:39:45] even can I guess incentivize those customers to use as few gallons as possible but it's also to keep the financial stability of the utility so will recall in 2011 and 2012 when we were in those extreme drought conditions the utility was going bankrupt so because of the curtailment of all the customers so this not only incentivizes customers to use less water but it also keeps the financial stability of the utility from to keep up with O&M costs I just don't get pay more use less use less pay more philosophically for me I know that in the past when we look at the amount that they would be charged the increase itself it is kind of a deterrent for individuals that we're saying at this point we're in drought level one we're very serious about this and we we know that we have a very precious commodity and if you continue using during the drought level you'll be penalized for that you meet a larger amount so when we look at the million and a half we calculate into this to determine our drought levels we keep in mind as well as far as the money that is I mean the water that is banked that we need that water in the future as we plan for intermediate and long term water supplies if we start using that water right now and including as far as the as part of the calculation our gravel at level one probably wouldn't hit for months down the road when in fact we should be conserving at this point as far as we're concerned we want to make sure that we're taking care of our citizens in the future and then we continue the planning process to secure the intermediate and long-term water supply and this bank water will go a long way to make sure that happens so at this point we started using it later on and we do get into dire straits because we go into prolonged drought we won't have an answer for that media intermediate long term how do we actually we're not buying the time necessary to make sure that we secure

[1:41:47] those waters do I have other questions or comments Lane I question that I know that's not going to have an an answer to it but right now we can water twice a week on our yards I'm already cut back to once a week and I don't know about the statistics of the rest of Saint Angelo but I'd like to do a survey to find out exactly who is still how many citizens are still watering twice a week and if we're already just cutting back to once a week is that going to have so much of an impact that it's actually going to help us to keep in drought level one before we go into JA level two you're right I don't have the answer to how many people are still watering twice a week but it is the point of your comment saying that we should look at changing it to an even stricter restriction or where you just know that's a conversation that needs to be had because if we say ok drought level 1 and 95% of st. Angela was already watering once a week this isn't going to change anything and we're gonna just keep depleting somewhere to see if if we can tell what usage patterns are yes Tommy I have a couple of questions ones related to lines Allison probably got an answer to this but it's not going to be today and I understand that but should we take a look at the the big picture of the different drought levels the different multipliers that would we would use on the incentivizing customers to use less is that something you should at some point you know in the next I need 120 days come back to us with a revised plan or option something like

[1:43:51] that is that something you would like to say yes sir that it's in our schedule to bring back kind of the overall picture of the drought levels what we what our restrictions are in those different drought levels how maybe those need to be evolved over time and watering practices and things like that and also just different conservation methods that have her research that's been done to make sure that we're up to speed with most current watering techniques and those type of things and maybe look at different ways to incentivize customers to utilize those conservation measures but bringing the drought plan back to you is something that we do want to do in the near future I can do it in the timeframe follow-up question to that the the calls that I have had about this where does the data come from that is and I guess it's mainly either on our website and/or in the in the daily newspaper of the amounts of available water is that the the total let's just say capacity in those different reservoirs that is shown there because I think that's confusing to people they think every single drop of that water is available when in fact I don't think it is because of being able to to get at some point we can't get it out of those reservoirs so for example with lake IV there's a certain level that the pumps are set at that they have serum WT has the capability of pumping there will be a Dead Pool storage to lake IV that is inaccessible from pumping so there will be a volume of water that remains an IV theoretically that we cannot pump so yes the volumes that come out with the daily lake level report are those that are so

[1:45:55] much own in the paper or the 100 percent capital but at 7 percent it's it's everything it's the total volume just to the minimum pumping level are there regulatory requirements that cause us our mandate us to use those numbers as opposed to really only that which is accessible to us I don't think that there is regulatory requirements it'd just be an operational I'm just wondering if that might be a clearer picture for people because they you know people can do math and they say oh well you've got you've got more water than what you because look here you add this up and do the math and it comes out to more than 25 months so I'm wondering if there might need to be some I think the biggest driver in just taking what our current supplies are and you know dividing that by our annual usage is that you don't you don't take into effect or into account the evaporation rates for those reservoirs which is significant at five and a half feet a year so a large volume of water is just going up into the air good thank you would you go back to the first grain where you show the percentages there so when you say fifteen percent it's 15 percent of what the total volume capacity of lake IV so 82,000 acre feet is 15 percent of the if it were 100 percent full of lake IV so that 15 percent is the capacity of of the entire lake but as I said our contract with CR MWD is only for sixteen point five four percent of that volume of IV what are we actually pulling out roughly sixteen to seventeen million gallons of water a day right now I don't have annual totals with me right now Harry did you have a comment or question I I guess I guess as the citizens are watching and trying to

[1:48:02] figure out what we're gonna do up here I think some of the concern that I've heard lately is is okay what are we doing to find other water sources I mean if we're we're reaching a a spot where we're gonna run out of water within the next two years what are we doing to do that so I think they need to understand that we are pursuing other water sources other things that we can do to ensure water supply for for the citizens of San Angelo and I think somebody needs to say that so that's why I did while we're watching it Lucy you I think you had a question yes Alison I wanted to ask you back to that 5% increase I think that's what a lot of people are gonna be really interested in it's finding that how our water bills are gonna be going out so I have some rates in front of me that I can look at so this three to five thousand gallon rate currently the per thousand rate is four dollars and 81 cents going into drought level wine that'll be five dollars and five cents for eighty one two five oh five twenty three cents there's a lot of it you know we we can say it's it's watering and everything but a lot of it is household also and that's why I say the three to five thousand gallons and even in the six to fifteen I can give you those because that's going to be where the bulk of the usage is so the current rate from the six thousand to fifteen thousand gallons is five dollars and sixty two cents under drought level one that would go to five dollars and ninety cents Thank You Alison this is also need to understand that if they're using less than 3000 gallons their water bill is not going to go up under two thousand gallons and a lady called me she was on fixed income and she says I don't want this five

[1:50:05] percent and I asked her I said how much do you use and she said she was very grateful graphic she said she used a five-gallon bucket to shower in but at the bottom line is is that I told her I said if you use less than three thousand gallons your water bill is not going to go up so I said most people unless you're watering outside if you're an individual or maybe even a couple are probably not going to get in too much more than that 2500 to 3000 gallons in what happens to between 2,000 and 3,000 because this goes zero to 2,000 that says 3,000 to 5,000 so where's that there's a lot of holes there in terms of usage what happens in those holes so we bill on the thousand gallon so if you use 2500 gallons exactly in a month your bill for that month is going to be billed at 2,000 gallons and then the 500 that remains would roll over to the next month so we bill on the thousand gallon mark we do not build into the hundreds or tens rolls over to the next month yes so then it could be three thousand what we see with a lot of customers is their one one one two one one you know they consistently use probably just a hair over a thousand gallons or two whatever the number may be and at one month it will catch up to you know add another tiered rate to it but for the most part those that are very consistent see that 2,000 gallons two thousand gallons every month let's go back to Hickory aqua for a minute so right now our treatment plan plant can handle how much water out of the hair choreographer million gallons and so and what do we have available to us that we could use we can use up to 12,000 acre feet a year so we've got one problem because we don't have a treatment plant that can process the much as water rate and water usages when I was at kind of speak to Harry's comment regarding what we're doing for the future and moving forward

[1:52:09] with the chicory is is one of the top things that we are looking at in taking that treatment capacity took the full production levels okay do I have further questions or comments from Council why is the three to five and six to 15 five percent the same instead of group together or why is it not rates in the three to five thousand gallon is different than the 2:15 so even though both are receiving a 5% increase the rate is different between the two okay then I will need a motion from Council so Harry your emotion is right we accept the report as as the recommendation to go to drought level 1 on August 1st do I have a second I will second the motion Billy seconds of motion do I have public comment first do you Hampton two points I had failed to remember that Spence was damaged and could not be used I'd like to hear more about what it would take to recover that water source and make it usable also education education is always an element that we seem to not do very well sufficiently to to assist us we have new video studios and everything like that couldn't these be used to be to help us in this quest to save water also in our billing literature and our Billings haven't heard anything about that would you like to know about billing well literature in the billing

[1:54:14] you know putting a little slip notifying people that their possible drought is on the horizon or going into level one could you cut back exact track sir Thank You Allison would you like to answer those questions so yes the spins pipeline will start with the first one is in disrepair and has been for a lengthy period of time it is not capable in its current state of pumping water from lakes vents to the city for the billing but I don't remember what the middle one was in regards to the billing we do have a special special message area on the bill that we do utilize as much as possible recently and when we change from our claw our method of disinfection we put that information on there when we post our CCR we put that information on there we can definitely put something in in regards to that additional slip or anything an additional piece of paper to go in the billing we can do those type of things if you would like they do cost more money to send out those additional notices but we will definitely put something in the special message area of the bill and then I think the other one was education we have a conservation manager that has been working hard over this past year she was hired back in October and her and Anthony have grouped up on several videos but we will have a drought campaign or a video that we can work on to kind of really promote that and put it on Facebook and social media and stuff like that unspent if we had the water line the pipeline fixed what's our availability of water from there it our annual production or rights are three thousand acre-feet I would have to go back and look to even see if

[1:56:17] Spence is at a level that is near our intake is one of the reasons why his fence fell below went to zero percent capacity and so that was one of the main drivers of why the pipeline wasn't fixed is because the water levels were below our intake and made it unusable not only from the pipeline standpoint but from the level of spent standpoint say that historically we spent the money to fix that pipeline we just the the investment would actually be either for the for the resource that we get back as far as a water we've looked at that in the past a long time ago and I Ricky Rick he's back there and when we looked at it the cost just I mean was exorbitant compared to what we would gotten back you know so again as she mentioned the debt I mean there's water quite frankly that would be so low that we can pool anyway and historically that water just hasn't been high enough to you to actually pull it through to our system I think I don't know if Anthony is still here but I know that I see on K LST or case in spots that talk about water conservation and we will also use I'm sure we use channel 17 as well to communicate conservation efforts in education so I know those are out there okay do I have other public comment with no further public comment we will take a vote all in favor of the recommendation of accepting drought level one effective August 1 say aye any opposed motion passes 6 0 item D consider approving the development of a volunteer program but by the Water Utilities Department to be known as conservative spot providing for the beautification of selected parcels of city land through restoration landscaping and regular maintenance that implement water wise practices including adoption of a written program policy and volunteer

[1:58:20] agreement and release in a form approved by the city attorney Paulina you're on morning mayor council my name is paulina levy I am the water conservation coordinator for the city today I wanted to highlight this opportunity we have to create a new volunteer program that would focus on restoration landscape and regular maintenance that adopts water wise water practices this would be in city-owned land and it would include tasks such as weeding caring for flower beds shrubs trees and cleaning trash one expected outcome would be an you know an area that residents could visit and use as an example of a beautiful garden that is still water wise now this program multiple benefits one of that would be cost-saving so currently our staff is going out to areas that we own water utilities areas and they are the ones weeding it's bringing it blowing the grass so they are spending time doing that if we have volunteer entities that take over that our employees would then be able to focus on core services this program does have cost that includes volunteer vests for safety measures however adopting entities would supply necessary equipment such as trash bags gardening equipment gloves landscape materials and as such so the reason we brought up this program was because we actually have a volunteer entity that is interested in doing such work and we have proposed the bluffs water tank on FM 2288 so that area was actually originally maintained to be an example

[2:00:26] of water conservation practices that would also encourage water conservation however over the years it has been neglected because again our staff time has been cut and we have just been doing the bare minimum there this area is open for the public and so it really is a great opportunity for volunteers to take over help us keep up with the maintenance of it create this example of water conservation and if the program is successful it has the potential to spread to other areas I know that we have adopted spot program that the last time I saw it on TV we had 18 areas that were not adopted so I know that that program is suffering from people signing up to do it I think in this one you have a specific group that's willing to do it but I can't imagine that conservative spot program is going to grow in any kind of great level but I think if we've got a group who's willing to do this water tank area that is a great benefit to the city so do I have any questions or comments from Council all right so with that do I have a motion to accept this program as any public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of the conservative spot say aye any opposed motion passes 6 0 item e second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending chapter 10 traffic control control article 10 point o3 operation of Motor Vehicle section 10.0 3.03 v lake nas worthy and Twin Buttes by mending the speed limit on a portion of camper Road around Spring

[2:02:30] Creek marina from 20 miles per hour to 10 miles per hour Carl yes this is the second reading for proposed ordinance to change the speed limit just at the section of camper Road around Spring Creek marina from 20 miles per hour to 10 miles per hour the primary reason being safety congestion the campers the narrow road people crossing the street the road for reasons at the lake the board did recommend approval and staff recommends approval it shows the section again and we seek your consideration of the second reading yes Billy I would just like to make a comment since this was presented the first time I've tried to drive 10 miles an hour it is really really difficult to drive 10 miles an hour but I do respect that the people that use that are recommending that we go you know forward you know with approving and so certainly I respect and accept but it is really difficult to drive 10 miles an hour I asked at the previous meeting if a car can go that low very well it sputters and my comment is still the same I just say say that there is no need to decrease the speed limit from 20 to 10 I mean as it is in our residential area it's 30 in show the way I see it when it is congested out there people are already taking the initiative of going slower anyway if there's car to car bumper to bumper they're gonna they're gonna go down on their speed so it's not like they're gonna need a speed limit to tell them hey y'all need to go slower it's just normal what I'm saying

[2:04:33] is that once when it's not congested people need to go 20 miles an hour when there's not a lot of people at the part so that is my host thing about whining I'm not gonna vote for it to go from twenty to ten saying do you have a comment Tommy Tommy moves approval is there a second oh yes sorry yes all right is a public comment you have to I support Lucy's judgement on that I think if they're children running around unsupervised then when maybe we need to put a sign out there so stating to avoid responsibility the government taking responsibility for everything if there's somebody that have to have if they're running behind people who are trying to back up and you put a sign you need a ground walker like the military and telephone companies so there are other ways to approach this if you know if we put it in we're having a hard time driving ten miles an hour then a policeman out there you know and so this adds up to another tax situation and an income that that I don't think this place is set up to be so I have further public comment no further public comment we will take a vote all in favor of passing item II say aye any opposed motion passes 5-1 item F

[2:06:40] consider approving a rental agreement with a vessel church for six months uses some of the rental spaces at Santa Fe Crossing senior sitter center on Sundays for church services with a monthly rental rate of $1,150 discounted due to multiple use from the approved fee schedule at 1680 dollars a month and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents Karl it's an effect crossing we have it's a long building there's an activity room there's a dining room there's conference room there's some offices and then a few other smaller activity rooms those rooms the one room that gets rented the most is the dining room sometimes the activity room and usually that's on the weekends or in the evenings it's not very often that we get around a request we were approached by a start-up Church the vessel that would like to rent on a fairly short term basis six months the activity room the conference room and the dining room at Santa Fe Crossing based on the council adopted rates for rental for these rooms for six months and this would just be on Sundays Sunday mornings for four hours for four weeks that would be ten thousand ten thousand eighty dollars looking at the council approved rates the church asked to rent those rooms at a discounted rate thousand dollars a month for six thousand dollars there is the activity room at Santa Fe crossing the conference room the dining room and of course the rental would include the common area the lobby and the restrooms considering city costs staffing utilities wear and tear and all forcing maintenance needs like if we have to replace an air conditioner we're recommending a counter I proposal of one thousand one hundred fifty dollars a

[2:08:44] month for six months for sixty nine hundred dollars basically a thirty two percent discount and this is based primarily on multiple use which we often do in other agreements Parks Recreation Advisory Board recommended approval at their meeting on May 24th and we see Council's approval of this item we do have a representative the church here if you is this on a month-to-month concept this concept would be a single agreement for six month term okay and then the question mark is you know the issue is when you give a discount to one group then everybody has a reason to ask for a discount going forward so how do you approve a disc count for one organization because the next time somebody's gonna want to rent the building they're gonna want a discount as well our way to do that just take it to the process let staff review it then take it to the board for their consideration recommendation then say I think you're gonna have every group asking for a discount in every group trying to go before the Parks and Rec group for a discount usually those discounts as I've seen them in the past being brought forward and they're not real regular but they're they're centered around something that's unique meaning a multiple rental I haven't seen them come hardly ever for just a single so I think that's the only thing that would make this one a little bit unique Harry I think you had a question yes since this is my district I mean yes do we have anything on on Sunday typically that we rent this building out no we do sometimes get Saturday for like receptions or small parties birthday parties or like a wedding reception but it's very infrequent probably three or four times a year normally these rooms aren't ready I kind of had the same thought process as the mayor and that is it got to be very careful on when we give discounts simply because now we set ourselves up for asking that same thing I like the idea of renting it out consistently for

[2:10:50] six months we know we've got some some income coming in as long as we're covering cost I have to say that I'm a little reluctant to do it with a with a thirty two percent discount could we hear from the representative from the church yes good morning my name is Justin Smith and we are looking to plant a new church in San Angelo hopefully in September we'd like to get into the building on August 5th and so that's why we're trying to get through these as far as why we're asking for this it's the same concept you mentioned it's a building that is not being used on those days that we can aid the city and hopefully covering some extra costs this should cover all of those costs and our goal long term is to be a good partnership there that can really benefit in other ways as well so that hopefully as as we grow into hopefully a larger church members would begin to volunteer their individuals begin to build relationships there and then where it goes from there we really don't know past that six-month mark if we're if we're growing and increasing potentially looking to rent more and increase these rates when we can actually pay for it but at the beginning stages we're finding it difficult to find anywhere in San Angelo to really provide a quality atmosphere I guess at a decent price and so that's why we're asking for the rates that we were we're asking in the long term the long term use the consistent used the consistent cash flow for the senior event center and and hopefully long-term partnership with volunteers and and other things do I have questions from Council for

[2:12:53] comments I'm just thinking that since you proposed 900 dollars less than what Carl and his group are recommending is that you can't afford to pay more at this point in time because yes so to start up and all right we've got a lot of cost going into the beginning of the church so hopefully after six months we're more self-sustaining we've got more individuals giving to the organization but right now we have a church that is willing to back us a thousand dollars a month that would cover this and then we've gotten not a number we've got a few individuals that are already giving to the church that can help offset some of these other things but then we've also got staffing and any number of ministry expenses that go into that so yes we've got somebody to cover a thousand we could still do 1150 okay much past that I'd have to really start talking and figuring out if we could or not okay all right well I certainly do appreciate all of the comments that have been made I think they've been right on track that if we make an exception here then somebody else is definitely going to come forward looking for exceptions but I guess I'm with Carl saying we would look at each one of those situations individually and make a decision at that time rather than just carte blanche because to the point that I think Harry made if the building is not being used we're getting zero if the building is getting used we're you know getting some monies into the coffers on that building so I would vote for us to accept the accept it as proposed that means Karl's proposal of 11:50 yes I don't think we have a motion yet but do we have further comment just

[2:14:56] one second do we have any further comment from Council and this is just for six months correct yes ma'am at this point yes passed that point would be up for discussion and depending on how well we perform and like I said a positive partnership between the two organizations are there further questions or comments from Council if not Billy would you like to make that proposal yes I make a motion that we accept the recommendation all right is it public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of the one thousand one hundred fifty dollars a month for six say aye are there any opposed motion passes 6-0 item G first reading a public hearing of ordinances approving one case C p180 for and admit to the comprehensive plan changing the future land use designation from industrial to neighborhood center being five acres located at four thousand and one South Chadbourne Street John I'm sorry did you read g1 and g2 I didn't I just read g1 I'm g2 is case 0 z1 806 a rezoning from the light manufacturing ml zoning district to the low-rise multifamily RM one zoning district being five acres located at four thousand and one South chadbourn Street now you're on thank you this is both an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as you mentioned changing from industrial to neighborhood center and then changing from lot manufacturing zoning to the RM one or multifamily zoning district you may

[2:16:58] recall this is the location for one of the low income housing tax credit projects that came before you a few months ago they had asked us to postpone consideration of this rezoning until they were further along in the tax credit award process they're here to speak so they may be able to answer this question at this point I'm not sure if they've received the tax credits or anticipating those but they have asked us that now is the timing to bring this back to you all as you can see this is the current property designation is industrial with light manufacturing zoning this would change that to accommodate the apartments on this particular site here's a sample site plan this isn't officially approved or anything but this is a concept that shows basically what they they may be looking at in terms of size and number of buildings although you are not approving this today you're simply would be approving the zoning additional samples of what they're proposing on the site we did send out our notifications we received zero in favor one in opposition just a concern about apartments and increased people and traffic and perhaps affecting property values of the surrounding manufacturing zones this does come to you with a recommendation of approval from staff as well as the Planning Commission I'll be happy to answer any questions we'd think changing it from industrial to neighborhood center would improve the district that's our recommendation of course okay so do I have questions or comments from Council I know this is a project that we have selected as the tax credit project earlier and this was the land at that point in time they had said that they would build this project so this is actually part of that decision-making so do we have public comment with no public

[2:19:10] comment we'll take a vote all in favor of g1 and to say aye any opposed motion passes six zero item H public hearing the first reading of an ordinance for the abandonment of a four thousand eight hundred ninety seven point one seven square foot portion of the Harbor Court public right-of-way John yes this is related to the drainage project that's being looked at in this area and so as part of all of the things that are happening in this particular area there's a request to abandon a portion of the bulb of the cul-de-sac which is Harbor Court and I think we have some zoomed in graphics of this and so the the total area that would be abandoned meaning it would no longer be a public street is that entire area this portion would be transferred to enter tel and become part of their larger property and this smaller portion here would become part of the city property that's that's on the other side of the street and so basically what you're being asked to consider is abandoning that portion of the cul-de-sac and there are a couple of conditions of approval that are standard conditions that it would be replanted as part of those adjacent properties etc but it does come to you with recommendation of staff as well as the Planning Commission notices were there any issues with notices sent no of course the the two affected properties are intertel and the city and so this is all part of the agreement that had already been worked out between the two second do I have public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes six to zero item J the first public hearing and

[2:21:18] introduction of an ordinance amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1 2017 oh sorry I skipped it yeah I marked it off already I'm trying to get us through this meeting fast okay so we're gonna go back to item I consider resolution related to the Chapman Street project RFQ for professional services to complete construction documents in phases okay Rick your hunche all right this is a follow up summary and resolution to a prior discussion that we held on this topic specifically regarding the street and streetscape for Chadbourne so specifically you'll see in your background information there's a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an advance funding agreement with text OTT which is our grant that we received there's a approving of an amended budget financing plan and there's the authorization for the project to proceed in phases and authorizing a request for qualifications for professional services so that's it in a nutshell we can go through if you would like the highlights of the resolution if you want to go through those I can go through those quickly or still want him to go through those okay is everyone okay all right if everyone's okay then the motion is approval the resolution public comment was no public you can proceed as that is but at the end of the resolution we do ask for three council representatives to serve on that so in addition to approving the resolution we'll need those three names I think we'll have Harry Lane and Brendan Oh Harry

[2:23:22] Lucy Brenda Gunther they're two districts any public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye opposed that passes 6 0 now item J first public hearing an introduction of an ordinance amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1 2017 and ending September 30 2018 for capital projects grants reimbursements and donations Tina good morning mayor council mr. Valenzuela we have several budget amendments for you today there we go the first one is for development services they are wanting to budget for our new site plan review fees and the funding source for that would be the site plan review fees that we have proved in a previous council meeting next would be the engineering they're wanting to budget for some revenue for those cell towers from I think it's mobility I want to use that for some needs that they have for computer equipment that's $3,000 a budget of $250,000 the I'm sorry budgeted revenue of $250,000 for the river bank stabilization project and an expense of $375,000 the revenue for that would be coming from budgeting one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars of surplus sales tax revenue and then the other hundred twenty-five thousand would come from stormwater fees where's the grant on that because we were planning for a grant for that working with us on that it's due the end of July it's an online process and they've been inputting data I just I keep following up every week to make sure they're on target but it's due the end of this month okay so the grant dollars will be over and above this

[2:25:27] expense item or is it part of this which would be a part of the overall project we don't know but we anticipate two hundred fifty thousand so the expenses 250 plus two three seventy five the revenues should be 250 and 250 I mean I'm set the revenue I'm sorry 250 plus two 250 so your revenue it could be five hundred thousand your expenses only 375 is that correct we will bring back the budget for the grant award after we receive the grant so we'll increase whatever we have set aside here by that amount once the grant is received and approved by council so your expense is going to grow if we get the amount of grant we're hoping to get and if we don't get the grant what we're approving today is the difference between 250 and 375 over and above the budget and if I remember is that correct that's what this says but you're saying you'll bring back this expense regardless right and so that 375 may go down if we don't get the grant I expect we would bring back the concept in general when we ask council to approve the grant award and then at that time we can show up any budget discrepancies or differences at that time well what I want to make sure we go back and review is defined as we made a mo we made a decision as a council when we were when we toured this riverbank area and found some really really bad areas and we said then we need to find the money to make this happen and we gave that direction then I'm assuming you've gone back and looked at those areas that were in really bad shape and this is inclusive in the expense item those areas that are really bad this item is really focused on yes doing those items and others but the only source of funding that of revenue that was identified was the 250 that's all Tina has identified at this point so I

[2:27:30] think that we could address I'd you didn't amount at this time is to for the purpose of the application of the grant to show that we do have a local match set aside and so that they can then award us the grant because we have to prove that we have the local match before they'll do that I believe that's the purpose of bringing this right now which is fine it just we've had a discussion about this riverbank stab stabilization and I want to know what we're covering what we're not carving what's because there was those really bad areas and I need to know if the numbers that you're projecting are inclusive of correcting some of those really really bad really bad areas that we looked at and this project would include that so this these are based on you know five hundred thousand dollar project 250 from the city and 250 from the grant if that does not happen we don't get the grant we will be coming back to you saying hey we didn't get the grant you have budgeted in revenue 250 you know we'd like to try four other grant dollars who would like to proceed with stabilizing those locations with our in-house dollars and giving that plan to you at that time you're asking us today to approve 375 I'm sorry the 375 is kind of doubling up is showing the transfer out of stormwater and is also showing the transfer into this project fund so it's really the expense budget we're not approving more money we're just approving moving it from point A to point B that's correct okay we just need to be clear on that yes we're not a parent additional dollars at this point only approve approving moving money moving moving a budgeted expenditure in one area to the other yes ma'am also clear on that with that is there further presentation here the next one is to budget for a reimbursement received with the indigent information and then we have an airport roof repair a total

[2:29:35] expense of 60,000 dollars there part of that is for a roof repair on one of the hangars out at the airport and the other part is for legal expenses with the Templeton project so we're proposing the budget and expense of 60 thousand 829 and then we receive a wellness incentive from Aetna every year and the amount may go back to the airport with repair the budget currently has go back through that I don't think that was clear okay so we're budgeting for an airport roof repair and that's not one in the budget right now that's correct there's no budget for the roof repair right yes ma'am that's not just a repair that's a complete new roof okay so Airport roof one of them one of the facilities that's out there and then that's three quarters of that the other is legal expense okay so once again she's using a source from another fund so she's showing the expense twice once for transfer and then once for expenditure for the project and that's why you see the expense double the revenue there's no new expense for the budget to 20 which is the airport operating fund cannot what's fund balance 502 capital projects okay so we have fund balance in there that you're gonna use part of that money to fund this well that'd be I'm sorry mayor man would that be asterisk somewhere that that's what's happening because if you look at this it looks like we're gonna have twice the expense and no money exactly so I mean that is a good question and it is a difficulty because it was a revenue in a previous year or it was cost savings in a previous year so it closed the fund balance it's an

[2:31:38] equity it's a it's an equity account and so the revenue or the cost savings occurred in a previous year and so that money stays in that fund not to be budgeted to be used and so what she's saying is in in that fund there are these savings or additional revenues which were not spent that have accumulated and now you're making those available the way you make them available as you budget them for expenditure we needed that clarification thank you you'll see that decrease from one month's the next in that fund balance that's what Tina there will be account lines in there there so transfers in oh and transfers out in the relative and I would also suggest you know to simplify the process in the future when we present a budget amendment that you do explain that these line items specifically okay so that way the City Councilmembers is a public meeting so you need to make sure the public having these discussions and it's clear Billy's name in there if you say Billy's note so we'll know mayor from stock from answer ask you so many questions we'll make that more clear in the future the next item we have on there's the wellness incentive that we received from Aetna each year and our human resources department uses that for incentive programs for our employees next up is the Coliseum LED lighting reimbursement that's a reimbursement from the San Angelo Stock Show and Rodeo Association for partial payment of that expense budgeting for both the revenue Spencer next up is Fort Concho capital needs again we are transferring money out of the state office building fund and into Fort Concho fund to pay for

[2:33:41] some needs at Fort Concho so you'll see that revenue and expense being budgeted in the Fort Concho fund and then we have service line water royalties and that's part of our neighborhood and Family Services where we received that royalty from the warranties that our water customers are able to purchase we receive those royalties and then they budget to help with emergency repairs and things like that unexpected expenses and finally the homebuyer funds reimbursement and that was due I believe to the sale of a home and yes to budget to account for we paid funds from a buyer who sold their home before the five-year period was that this is our local match from the grant for the grants that we are have coming up that we will also be budgeting for this comes from the passenger facility fund into the grant fund as our local match for those grants of 192 thousand dollars we have budget amendments for the airport master plan grant and the airport rehabilitate rehabilitation grants in the amounts of $125,000 and 1 million $95,000 for those grants we had a citizen contribution for Spain neuter assistance program and so will budget for that as a designated revenue source that can be used for that program and then finally we have the industrial park improvements grant for the cosa dici project at the industrial park you know how the expense in the grant matched it right the expense was 1,250,000 and the grant was the 1,250,000 so it netted out zero this is our local match for that grant okay because when you look at it this way it looks as you know this is the grant fund I'm sorry this is budgeting for the grant okay do I have questions from for counsel from counsel or comments

[2:35:44] was presented any public comment on this item there's no public comment we will vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes 6 0 item K update on sales tax revenue performance tina sales tax was up in july thirteen point seven seven percent in comparison with the same month and last year our collections for July were $210,000 over what we had budgeted for that month and we are over budget for revenue year today at one point three million dollars you have the slides that show them but we did not receive industry information yet so I'll present both of those next month when I report on sales tax okay thank you thank you at this point we will move into our closed session we will be gone for about an hour and 15 minutes maybe hour and a half we'll be back in an hour and a half I'm gonna sorry read an executive session under the provision of Government Code title five open government ethics subtitle a open government chapter five five one Open Meetings subchapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings be open under the file sections section a five five 1.07 to deliberations about real property regarding one city farm leases and to block fifteen Angelo Heights addition and three 703 South Chadbourne and B section five five 1.07 one to consult with attorney when the governmental bodies sixty advise of its attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas disciplinary rules of professional conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter regarding one water rights and contracts for Lake Naza worthy and two operational agreement for the Santa Fe

[2:37:46] Golf Course with that we will close for closed session all the meeting back to order at 12:30 7:00 p.m. we will move on to there's no announcements from the closed session so we will move on to item 9 follow-up and administrative issues which was to discuss anything in executive session which there is nothing and item B we are moving off the agenda it will not be up for conversation today so we'll move on to item C announcements and consideration of future agenda items are there any if there are none we will I will ask for a motion for adjournment if we adjourn of course it passes meeting adjourned at 1237 as well

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=Jd5iHoiqz6c