San Angelo City Council 10-21-25

[0:00:00] It's 8:31 on Tuesday, October the 21st, 2025. So, we're going to call this meeting to order. First thing we'd like to do is always open our meetings with uh the prayer and pledges. And today, I believe got we have Marcela Jenkins going to come up and lead us in the prayer and pledges. >> Good morning, everyone. Is everyone here? Oh, we got a lot of people. I'm get really nervous. Um, let's bow our heads heads to pray. God of justice and mercy, thank you for the gift of life and the opportunity to serve the people of our city. Help us to act with character and conviction. Help us to listen with understanding and goodwill. Help us to speak with charity and restraint. Give us a spirit of service. Remind us that we are stewards of your authority. Guide us to be the leaders your people need. Help us to see the humanity and dignity of those who disagree with us and to treat all persons, no matter how weak or poor, with the reverence your creation deserves. God, protect our first responders from all hurt, harm, seen and unseen. Give them the compassion and love to all people. Overshadow them with the wisdom and understanding that is needed in making good decisions. And finally, Father, renew us with the strength of your presence and the joy of helping to build a community worthy of the human person. We ask this as your sons and daughters, confidence in your goodness and love in Jesus' name. Amen. >> Amen. Would you please repeat the pledge after me? Thank you. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,

[0:02:03] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Texas flag, I aliance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. We have three pledges this morning. And as I read the pledge that is with your organization, I'd like your organization to come up and stand here beside me as we read the pledge. So everybody here for red ribbon week. >> Tom, I think it's a proclamation. >> It's a proclamation. >> Not a pledge. >> Pledge. We did oneclamation. >> We did. We did the >> Thank you for the correction, Tommy. >> Yes. >> All right. Y'all get right there. >> I'm not sure whether he meant that or not. Substance abuse disorder is particularly damaging to one of our most valuable resources, our children, and is a contributing factor in the three leading causes of death for teenagers, accidents, homicides, and suicides. It is imperative that visible unified prevention education efforts by community members be launched to eliminate the demand for drugs. It is the goal of Red Ribbon Week in the ADACC to involve families, schools, businesses, churches, law enforcement agencies, and service organizations in all aspects of this campaign and establish an atmosphere that supports awareness, education ongoing initiatives to prevent illegal drug use. The Red Ribbon Week campaign theme promotes family and individual responsibilities for living healthy drug-free lifestyles without illegal drugs or the illegal use of legal drugs. There are many activities planned during the Red Ribbon Week campaign in Tom Green County. Therefore, I Tom Thompson, the mayor of the city of St. Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the city council, do hereby proclaim

[0:04:06] October 23rd to October 31st, 2025 as Red Ribbon Week and call upon all citizens, parents, governmental agencies, public and private institutions, hospitals, schools, and colleges in the city of St. Angelo to support and increase community awareness and prevention efforts in our community. Would somebody like say sworks? >> Good morning. My name is Eric Sanchez. I'm the CEO of the Alcohol and Drug Awareness Center for the Conso Valley, commonly known as ADAK. And we want to thank Mayor Thompson, council members, and the city for their support, for their concern, and their ongoing partnership for ADAK and our efforts to to save lives in our community. the issue of substance use disorders, uh, addiction is not going to go away and we need to work as a community together to address it and address it the best we can. We're there to serve. We're there to accomplish our mission to save lives and create healthier communities. And I want to thank our team, Chris, Rehea, Kayla, thank you so much for being here. And all our team for all the work they do day in and day out to make St. Angelo a better place and a healthier place to live. Thank you so much, Mayor. [Laughter] >> We would have been asked for it. Let's get over here. So, the people with the community planning month, that would be all the planning department. Rick, come on down. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

[0:06:09] You got to be in on this one. >> Oh, yeah. As the ring leader, he has to be in >> right beside you. Do you want to read it? >> It's not photo yet. It doesn't have to be that perfect, but anyway. >> Exactly. Yeah. Sure shows on this one. Anyway, change is constant and affects all communities. Planners can help navigate this change with data-driven insights and expertise that provide better choices for how people work and live. Community planning provides an opportunity for residents to be meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community. The full benefits of planning require public elected and appointed officials who understand, support, and demand excellence in planning. The month of October is designated as National Community Planning Month throughout the United States. The American Planning Association endorses this month as an opportunity to highlight how planning is essential to every community and how planners are uniquely positioned to identify solutions to communities most difficult questions. This proclamation gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participants and dedication of public officials who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvements of the city of St. Angelo as well as the many valuable contributions made by the professional community and planners of the city of St. Angelo. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, mayor of the city of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the city council, and in conjunction with the celebration of National Community Planning Month, hereby proclaim the month of October 2025 as community planning month and encourage all citizens to recognize the importance of community planning in creating a livable, sustainable, and prosperous future for all in our community. Aaron, you're up. Thank you, Mayor Thompson, city council, city administration. Very excited about our planning team as well as um those volunteers that are appointed by city

[0:08:12] council members. Uh we have a couple of them here today, uh Lyndon and Britney that serve on our planning commission and they are they are key to making decisions for our community. And as you citizens sit out there or hear this, we really want you involved in our community. So, please contact uh our city clerk or even our um your elected official to say, "I really want to participate in our community. Is there somewhere on a board or commission that I could sit on that could help drive our future?" In the next 18 months, we're going to be starting on our comprehensive plan for our community that'll lead us through 2050. That's really, really important for our community. We're going looking at fiscal uh stewardship. We're looking at datadriven solutions for our community. So, we're very excited about this. And again, thank you again, mayor, uh, for doing this proclamation. And we got a great staff team here with us today. We've got Ray Linberry, we got Austin Reid, we've got Karen Putnham and Ardan Nef, and then, of course, Major with our metropolitan uh, planning organization who does a lot of stuff in planning for us, big picture stuff. So, we're very excited about having them. And then, of course, our assistant city manager, Rick Weiss, who started out as a planner and then went to the dark side. So, but we're very excited about it. And then Charlie Kemp's, our assistant director back there. She's hiding back there. So, she's doing a great job, too. So, thank you everybody. Let's get a photo. Hey, Charlie. Come on down. >> That's the penalty for trying to hide. Don't let him in the back. Who's here with the energy efficient

[0:10:16] month? Mike, have you got your crew? >> Brought a small army with you today. >> Exactly. I I didn't bring my patch. I had my patch, but I didn't I know it. That's impressive. >> Oh, you have a speech prepared. >> You can stand here. They can see right over. >> Wow. >> If you'd have known how long her and I have battled. All right. All right, y'all. Born out of Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty and the advocacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Community Action Agency's fight for the promise that every individual and family should have an opportunity for success. Founded in 1966, Concho Valley Community Action Agency has a nearly six decade history of providing assistance and promoting self-sufficiency for citizens of limited income. CVCAA plays a vital role in supporting lowincome families and underserved communities by advocating for policies and programs that improve living conditions and economic opportunities. Energy efficiency is a powerful tool in reducing energy cost, alleviating the burden on low-income households, and advancing social and economic equity. October has been designated as energy efficiency month, providing an opportunity to raise awareness about the benefits of energy efficiency and the positive impact it holds for low-income families and the entire community. Energy efficient homes not only reduce energy bills, but also contribute to cleaner air, healthier living environments and enhance economic stability for residents, particularly those facing financial hardships. With a mission of helping people and changing lives, CVCAA has helped numerous households cut down their utility spending and made our region a better place to live, work, and play. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, mayor of the city of St. Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the city council, do hereby proclaim October 2025 as energy efficient month in San Angelo, Texas, and want to emphasize the importance of energy equity and sustainability for all.

[0:12:19] Together, we can work towards a brighter future for our great city. [Applause] Mike, you have a few >> a few short comments. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. Uh we do uh appreciate your support in highlighting the importance of energy conservation, especially for our most vulnerable neighbors. At CVCIA, we've been running weatherization program since the 70s through the Department of Energy's weatherization assistance program and the low-income home energy assistance program. These programs aren't just about sealing windows or adding insulation. They're about dignity, safety, and economic stability. When we weatherize a home, we're helping families reduce their bills, stay warm in the winter, cool in the summer, all while improving health outcomes, and reducing emissions. For low-income households, these upgrades can mean the difference between choosing to pay for heat, or buying groceries. We have our our CVCAA team here. It takes a village to help our community. Uh most of our weatherization staff is actually out in the field with our state monitors, but Ricky is one of our weatherization techs hiding in the back here. So, as we uh continue this legacy of service, we're proud to stand with with you and the city and thank you for recognizing the value of energy efficiency for all. We'll now move over to public comment.

[0:14:23] Members of the public may raise issues or concerns not listed on the regular agenda during this time. To participate, please sign in with city clerk prior to the beginning of the meetings. Speakers will be called in order they signed in. When speaking, citizens must speak from the podium. We'll address all comments to the dis. Begin by stating your name and address or single member district number and limit your remarks to three minutes or less. Heather, do we have any public comment this morning? >> Yes, sir. Oliver, mayor. Oliver. >> Okay, >> say the name again. >> Oliver. Mayor. >> Is Oliver here? >> Next on public comment, Heather. >> Are Green. Are >> good morning, mayor, council member, council members, and the citizens of uh St. Angelo, Texas. First of all, I want to thank you for letting me come and present the SBA disaster assistance program. At this point, um, everyone should know that we've been here to offer assistance for the damages that occurred back in on July 2nd. So, I am here to give an update on the 60-day um extension period, which will end on November the 3rd, 2025 for physical damages. And who is eligible for that program? homeowners, renters, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. And we also have another program um that will end on June 15, 2026. And that program is for businesses and nonprofit organizations only. And in that program, they do not necessarily need to have any physical damages. The damages comes in economic injury. A lot of businesses and nonprofit

[0:16:26] organizations say, "Oh, I didn't get any damages. I wasn't affected." But 6 months to a year later, their revenue is down and they're wondering what happened. They have been impacted by the injury. when a neighboring community, if your community um didn't suffer as much damage as the neighboring the neighboring community did, sometimes with businesses, it trickles down and they don't know that they have been affected until months later. That's why we give them that extension time um to June 15, 2026. So again, I would like to thank you for letting me come and give an update on the program that we have for your community. Um, I hope that you will take advantage of this program and that it will be beneficial to you all. At this time, I will open the floor for any questions that you may have for me. >> Miss Green, it's it's just public comment. You've made that. We'll work with our public information office to make sure this information gets put out, conveyed. Thank you so much for coming this morning. Thank you for having me. >> Thank you, >> Heather. >> And lastly, Mike Bernett. >> Mike Bernett. >> Another few short words. >> Exactly. And you'll use them all. >> I will use them all. But I'm not a pirate anymore. So, >> we're glad to see you. >> Uh, thank you, council. I'd like to take a moment to introduce two new uh team members at CBCAA who are helping guide our community through recovery and resilience. Melissa Hernandez is our director of community care coordination. Her team provides holistic case management, working one-on-one with individuals and families to develop individualized service plans that address not just immediate needs, but long-term goals in flood recovery. Whether it's housing, health care, food, or financial stability, Melissa's team is walking alongside each household, helping them navigate systems and build

[0:18:29] a path forward. As we move through the flood recovery, the community care coordination team is laying the groundwork for something bigger. This isn't about just disaster response. It's the first step in building a long-term community centered care model. The same level of holistic case management we're providing now will extend into other areas across the entire Concho Valley wherever the need arrives and it will be a core component of the Rockse campus where we are creating a hub for wraparound services that meet people where there are. This approach will also help us respond to future challenges whether it's another disaster or systemic issue that needs to be coordinated compassionate response. Community care coordination is not just a program. It's a promise to walk alongside our neighbors no matter what they're facing. Next, Marcus Osborne is our director of community resiliency. He leads our disaster response and recovery efforts and will be deeply involved in broad community planning and linkage. Marcus will be overseeing the St. Angelo area co-ad, the community organizations active in disaster, and the LTRG long-term recovery group. His work is to build on the already established collaborations with local agencies, faith groups, and government partners to ensure a coordinated response to disasters. Marcus' work isn't just reactive. He will he will also be building resiliency programs during blue sky times before disaster strikes in every county across the Koncho Valley. These programs focus on preparedness, education, and strengthening local networks so that when the next crisis comes, our communities are ready. Together, Melissa and Marcus are helping ensure that recovery is not just about rebuilding homes. It's about restoring lives, strengthening systems, and preparing for the future. And as every new challenge arises, we will be ready not just to respond, but to lead with compassion, coordination, and community. I'd like to say thank you to the city and our community partners for walking alongside us in this work. We're proud to be your partners in building a stronger and more resilient Koncho Valley. >> Thank you. >> 30 seconds left. Heather, any additional public comment?

[0:20:38] All right, with that, y'all will move into the consent agenda and I'll go down the dice and ask uh if anyone has anything to pull. And I'll start with you, Mary. Do you have anything you want to pull, Mary? >> Uh, yes. Well, not necessarily pull, but I do have a couple of questions on uh F. >> All right. So, we we'll have to pull it to discuss it. >> I'm sorry. >> We'll have to pull it to discuss it. So, do you want to pull F? Uh, yes, please. >> All right. Karen, >> I >> I Patrick, >> good to go. >> Harry, >> no, sir. >> Nothing to pull. Tommy, >> no. So, we'll look for a motion to approve all items except inf. >> Have a first from Harry. >> Second. >> Second from Karen Hessie Smith. Any public comment? With no public comment on those items, we'll take a vote for all items except I and F. Say I. >> I. >> Any opposed. All those items pass 6. Now we'll go to item F. Consider a resolution updating the standard detail SX1 Street in Barricade January '08 to include slip wedge polebase breakaway pole standards and sign reference to text dot OM4 coordinating subdivision installations to match citywide traffic sign hardware. Kevin Pate or Shane Kelton. >> Yes. >> Sorry, >> Miss Coffee. How what questions can we answer for you? Well, on this uh with it being a text dot is this at last meeting there was uh a question is we're following text dot standards with uh the delineators and I don't know if this is part of that or just uh anytime I see text dot I see costing money and so >> there this and while these are these are text dot normal text dot standards which they we we have the Texas manual on uniform traffic control devices uh which follows was the the nationwide manual on uniform traffic control devices and

[0:22:41] there are several different standards uh within the text dot within the uh within the um standards. Uh there's several different standards within the the entire um the entire manual. And so one of the ones that we utilize is not is not the ones that you see on the text dot with the high-speed roadways with the big bases and the three bolts. We actually use a we actually use a a base and a pole and a slip wedge anchor which is a a more cost-effective means of of meeting uh the same safety um and the same and the same uniformity of of the text code. >> Good deal. I was I was looking at it more from an infrastructure uh side, but that's not what this is. So, thank you. Appreciate it. >> I have a question, Shane. >> Yes. >> Um and maybe Daniel can answer as well. So are these going to be for temporary roads or only permanent endings? >> These are for only permanent endings. We do have there is as as part of the end of it and and of course Mr. Jones spoke at the last meeting uh his concerns on the temporary road and and and so did Mr. Templan as well had those same concerns and brought those uh brought those forward to to us at the city. And so we do have we do have within the specifications if it's if it's a temporary um um deadend marker where that road is going to extend into the into the future uh with a phase development approach um then they can use the 4x4 uh wood post uh like they have been using in the past just buried 36 in in the soil. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I get a motion? >> Like to move to accept uh item F. I have a first from Mary, second, >> second from Tommy Heert. Any public comment? >> With none, we'll take a vote on item F. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> None opposed. Item passes 6. Now we'll move to I. Second reading of an ordinance amending chapter 2 administration and personnel article 207 boards committees and commissions

[0:24:43] division 1 generally section 2.07.01 1 organizations and procedure by providing for alternative board members providing for severability and providing for an effective date. >> Brandon, you're on. Yes, ma'am. >> This is a good thing. Glad to see it. A couple of quick questions, though. Can an alternate member be elevated to a board seat if a position becomes available? >> I mean, I think you'd have to separately nominate them and have them reapproved as a regular member. >> That's what we've done in the past. We may need to look at that um further and get back with you. >> Direction should we take? Well, so the purpose of this was if we didn't if we didn't obtain a quorum >> not to hold up >> the pace of business and so we could put an alternate in there to temporarily fill that position. Now, that's not a full-time appointment. That was just looking for a temporary appointment. >> So, I would think and we'll leave this up to legal, but if we do want somebody to serve permanently, they have to be appointed and go through the standard process. Sure. >> That's my understanding, but I I think we may have a prior research and legal opinion on this that I'd like to look back at um before I give a >> So, suggestion at this point we just pull the item and don't vote it and table it. >> Yeah, I think so. >> All right. Do I have to have a motion to table it? >> Um I'll make a motion to table. >> Yeah. >> I have a first from Karen and a second from Patrick to table this item. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? With no nays, this items will be tabled for a later time. Am I good to move forward? All right, let's go ahead and move into the regular agenda. Comments regarding the items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above. To participate, please sign in with the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will

[0:26:45] be called in the order they signed in. Comments are limited to less than three minutes. Applicants, proponents, and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit their remarks to less than five minutes. Item eight, consider approving the over 65 retirey coverage at the recommendation premium and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Presentation made by HR director Veronica Sanchez. >> Good morning, council mayor. Thank you. Veronica Sanchez, HR director. Um, today I bring to you the funding portion of the over 65 Medicare Advantage plan that we currently offer. Um, if you remember at the last meeting, um, council approved to select Humanana as the provider for this service. Um, so as promised, we're bringing back the funding piece for that. there were some conversations um that we needed to have with the retirey group. So before I go over this slide um I do want to give you I guess a quick rundown of what occurred last year um with this service. It went out to bid because of some legislative changes. That increase came back at somewhere around 65%. Um pretty hefty increase. the staff. Do >> you have a dollar amount on that increase? >> I don't have the dollar amount on that increase. I apologize. >> I think it was over $500,000. >> It was 550. >> Um, in order to try to reduce that percentage increase, staff, um, city council, I believe, uh, the retirey group got together and determined that maybe they could reduce, um, I'm sorry, implement some plan changes. So uh the implementation of some sort of a co-pay or co- insurance um might be helpful to reduce that cost. Um by the time this was decided uh they could not go to a

[0:28:49] different vendor for the service and plan changes could not be implemented. So the city moved forward with providing the service to the over 65 group at 0% increase um to their premium along with zero plan changes. they maintained their plan. Um the city did incur a cost for having to move forward in that direction to the tune of $500,000. What it equates to, I guess, in terms of premium, I don't have that number for you. Okay. So, fast forward to this year, we went out to bid for this service again. Um initially the renewal um rate came in at somewhere around 31.13%. Um that's an increase of about $120 per month per member regardless of who absorbs that increase. Um whether it's the city or the retiree. Um annualized increase is 4.66 u 466,000. um retirey first and hub were able to um get another bid from a different vendor which again is who you selected to uh provide this coverage next year. That's Humanana. The initial increase came at 9%. Um they were able to renegotiate that down to 4.18%. That's a $62,000 increase um to expenses and that equals uh $1352 increase for um the premium uh or the cost in general regardless of who takes on that increase. So based on the challenges that we expressed at the last meeting for the fund in general, um an unfunded liability of anywhere between $3 to $6 million based on claims activity and the development of a healthy fund balance.

[0:30:52] The recommendation is to increase the premium for this group, the post65 retirey group by that $13.52. Um, this means their total premium would be $33.96 to cover that increase. And with that, I'll take any questions. I'll expand if if you need me to on any of this information. >> Oh, I'm sure we're going to have lots of questions on this, Veronica, so be comfortable. Look, th this is one of the items that as the city and council we struggle with every year on how to convey something that there there's no proof to it, but it was a discussed norm through the days that if they worked here during a specific time period, they would get insurance for the rest of their life. Now, what we're talking about is a specific benefit on here that it's a benefit to only a limited group of people and the cost is spread out amongst the entire group and many of us of the employees here while they campaign for this and help advocate for this, they do not qualify for it. So, I commend them and thank them for that. But also, that does create a little bit of just to be honest, some animosity amongst the crowd of the entire city of St. Angelo has to bear this financial burden. So, it gets spread out amongst those that don't get this benefit. But I but I see that now in discussions that I've had with um Russell and some other people. And I will say this for the retirees that here, you probably couldn't pick a better person than Judge Gilbert and Russell to campaign for you even late at night till the late hours. But regardless of that, um the message is is gone through here clear. But there may be options to this while this year is determined. um we might be able to go and and be able to keep this at a zerocost influence, but we would have to change the benefit. I mean, we would have to shop that policy. And Veronica, is it your opinion that if we shop that policy we're talking about, the benefits would stay the same? Would they go up or would they go down? >> Um if you shop this policy and uh I guess in and the goal is to have uh

[0:32:57] zero increase, then the benefit would go down. there would have to be implementation of some sort of a co-pay or co- insurance. Um, again, that was a consideration last year to try to decrease that 65% increase that was quoted. So, um I can't anticipate that the benefit would get any richer for >> realistically we don't see that happening. But if if the cost is the item here, then it comes to the point of maybe we will have to shop this next year and see what that would actually be as an alternative to maintain a zero cost and I know that's one of the key drivers for them. But I just want to get that point out there. There are some options. This year we have already assumed and closed what it is. Now, we're just trying to determine who's going to cover what percentage of the policy. With that, I will open it up to the dice if anybody has any questions or Veronica. >> Tommy, >> Mary. >> Yeah, we'll start with you, Mary, and we'll work this way across. >> Uh that half a million dollar increase that's not just on the 65, right? That's I mean, we saw that everyone's seeing those increased cost and what have you. that half a million dollar increase last year or or >> Yeah, I'm just trying to clarif because we've got, you know, the health insurance as a whole for the group and then we've, you know, got this carved out part for the over 65. Sometimes the terminologies and the dollars kind of get shifted around. >> Yeah. No, that half a million dollar increase was for specifically that uh that coverage. That's what I'm what I'm looking at now though is that 62,000 that we're trying to see who who gets to pay what. >> Uhhuh. >> Uh we're talking what 330 people >> that are over >> 330 people are covered under this plan. Yes. About 260 78 of them are on the tier one plan which means they get the benefit of paying the current uh premium of 2044. So, we're going into the year 26 into the 26th year of this. >> And I I'll I'll just be blunt. I don't

[0:34:59] know how to be any other way, but uh that group is dwindling and it will continue to dwindle. To me, the 62,000 and that's a lot of money. I I feel like our honor, we have an agreement that we have agreed to honor and have we looked at can that be spread somewhere else? Can we find cost savings in other funds that could subsidize this without it um hurting either the retirees or diminish any kind of monies available for another fund? Um I guess Tina would have to speak in terms of utilizing other funds for this purpose. This has its own fund. Um and so typically those contributions that we collect both on the city side and on the uh employee side go towards these expenses whether it's claims or um the price of the benefit that we're providing. So, so we're not able to shop again for this year, but we can next year and maybe put in that tiered deal that has a where they at least have a choice choice. >> But this just this didn't just sneak up on it on us, did it? I mean, we kind of ran out of time, didn't we? >> Um, no, not necessarily. We did bid it out in time. Um, the reason that it wasn't presented at the last meeting is because we were having conversations with the retirey group, both Russell and Judge Gilbert. And I will say I I failed to mention this and I apologize to them. I'm sure they'll speak to it, but one of the options that they presented was that when we have that transition from an under 65 retiree to an over 65 retiree, it does cost the city less to provide that um that service to the tune of $300 per member per month. Um so for example for the next plan year in 2026 we have about 22 um under 65 retirees that will turn 65. So they'll transition

[0:37:01] into this other group. So we do the city does pay less for that group. Um although it it seems like a savings because it's one fund, it just means that the city doesn't have to pay that additional $300. So those monies go towards claims um or other expenses within that fund. Um so um I think that is a viable option for next year in terms of shopping maybe providing some option that might be at a zero cost knowing that uh the plan might just have some changes. >> I'm good for right now. I'm sure there'll be others. Thank you. >> No problem. Patrick. >> Hello, Veronica. Um, on that that last um talk about you presented the ones under 65 going to over 65, >> we hire to replace them and so that just adds back to our cost, does it not? >> So, as one transitions where we fill back their place and then that costs us that insurance as well. >> Well, it's a retiree, so they're they're typically >> Well, I'm saying their replacement. Whoever retires, we replace their position. >> Correct. So it's not a it's not a net I mean it's it's still a loss. We still pay that retirees plus the one. >> Yes. >> So to me that's not quite a even swap. >> No, not necessarily. >> Um and so just to clarify that it this group um we've had to pay 500,000 extra already in the last couple years. Right. >> The last year. >> And so this is 60,000 on top of that. >> That's correct. Okay. >> Um that's all the questions I had. Thank you. Terry. >> Well, as somebody that fits the group post 65, since I'm 80 years old, I'm older than a lot of the people that are in the audience. Let me ask a couple things here. Just address a couple things. Mayor indicated that maybe next year we could shop some of these things. But as you shop plans, and Mr. Heert, you're

[0:39:03] probably going to get into this. One of the things you got to be careful of is just because you got a low premium doesn't mean that's the best plan. What happens when you get a low premium and you got an increase out of pocket cost or an increase in co-pay? Those are things I look at all the time as I look at some of my supplemental Medicare stuff. So be careful when you say going to have a keep a low premium because that may not be the best option for what we've got for the post 65. The other thing is is you got to remember and this is a business just like any business in town. The legacy costs are going to continue to go up. There's no doubt about it. But at what point in time that that cost if we don't share that cost happens the possibility of having to cut services to all the citizens in St. Angelo. Think about that. Mr. He >> I want to zoom out to a bigger picture. Veronica, um what is the total spend on the um current benefit that is annual spend on the benefit that is now offered >> for the over 65? >> For the over 65, >> uh currently we spend 1.5 million. >> And is that is that just the city's portion? >> That's the entire cost. That's the entire cost and the city picks up approximately what percent of that >> for 278 of those retirees. Um everything except for $2044. Um the the per member per month cost currently is $323. So if if you could put a percentage on

[0:41:06] that >> that's probably 90s something percent I would assume. >> Um for me this is a big this is a big p a bigger picture issue. Yeah it it it it affects um people no doubt on a monthly basis but how much did we have to put in now? Uh well let me ask one one other question. This is a part of the overall self- insurance fund. We don't look at this as a separate pool of money and then the self- insurance fund for the active employees as another pool of money. Isn't it all one pool of money as far as we just from an accounting standpoint for the city? >> That's correct. That's the self insurance. >> And how much did we have to put into our self- insurance fund three months ago? >> Four months ago. 3 million, $4 million. >> Mhm. >> Because it was underfunded. And you're still telling us that 3.5 to 6.2 on top of that that we had to put in there. >> Correct. >> That is that correct? >> That's correct. And the reason why we had to develop a different plan structure for under 65 and active employees this year and obviously increase that premium for them as well. >> So for me this this is a bigger picture thing. Um, we have a and and this my opinion, we have a responsibility to all the employees and to the citizens um as council members to do our best to to manage our our budgets or our budget prudently. And um if we just keep adding cost to this, to me that would beg the question, is this prudent financial management on the council's part? So, um,

[0:43:10] Harry struck something I think that needs to be repeated. Um, to keep the same benefits is going to cost more every single year. It's not going to go down in premium. Um, so perhaps next year we do need to to come up with a plan that has lower benefits and then let the retiree choose. Do they want to keep the premium the same or do they want to increase the premium to keep keep the the the current benefit that they have today? That may be a decision that we need to make next year. Again, we we don't have time this year. Um at at this point, mayor, that's that's all the questions or comments that I have. >> I want to bring back this discussion from last year. Um last year at this time, we were talking about doing away with the whole thing and making the retirees carry the entire burden and that was a discussion and that got overturned. We end up assuming that and we we voted on it and cleared at 70. Now, that was with a different council, but regardless, we made some steps to certainly go forward with this, and this decision is not easy. I mean, this discussion is not simple. We have people that we're trying to take care of. Um, in these discussions, there's also a city view, and I know Daniel, I'm going to call an audible here, but I'm going to want you to talk a little bit as somebody that has seen these and dealt with it for 14 years. Give me an opinion of what it is and how this affects going forward. First of all, I can tell you right now that um there's two sides of me and I'll I'll share both of them. Uh my heart and the commitment is with the retirees, but my business thinking on this is solveny and how can we take care of the the insurance that we have for everyone at this point. That's a struggle that I have and looking back at a decision that

[0:45:14] was made by previous council and previous administration quite frankly as far as the recommendation um it was something that was going to prove very challenging for the future and on our part I know that uh you've already mentioned uh Veronica as far as the legislative changes that happened last year that caused this half a million dollars that we ended up having to cover. There's legislative changes happening for the city as well as far as the revenues are that are coming in. We're being very limited at this point and we know that even that uh is coming back again as far as for discussion legislative changes that probably will limit the uh expenditures. It'll limit I mean the revenues that we'll have coming in. So which goes back to what Tommy just said a while ago too is we'll have to be taking a look at services. Harry said it as well. What can we do to minimize our service to make sure that we as a city remain solvent. We've always budgeted very conservatively. We we maintained uh being in the black year after year. But the challenges are real and for me looking at uh the current situation I understand for the retirees, my goodness, I I want to do everything I can possible to to really assist that situation. But the other part of me understands too for the solveny sha sake uh we're going to have to make that tough decision and say do we continue moving forward this way I know that the other our our employees they want to keep pretty much a similar type benefits they're their portion went up almost 200% 44 $40 is what they're paying so um again on my end I'm torn between the two but I do feel that solveny for the city moving forward is the most important thing that we should be looking at and that's my thought on that. >> I'm sorry. >> Thank you, Daniel. >> Tom, could I make one comment, please? >> Nobody is sneezing at $62,000. And in the grand scheme of things, you can look at it. It's either that's a lot or that's not not that much. Most of these people when they did hit in that 65 year, that was 25 years ago, almost 26 years ago, their pay scale was much

[0:47:19] lower than what it is now. And the only reason why I bring that up is we don't get to decide what that burden is to someone else. I have no knowledge of their financial situation. Uh it doesn't seem like that's that much money and I agree with that. My stance is we made a commitment whether it was previous council or um however many years you want to go back 25 years. But that that was something we gave them and that we I believe that we need to keep our word on that. It's going to get tighter every year and harder to come, you know, to make 2 plus two equal five, you know. Um, I in good conscience can't jerk that from them right now. That number is going to be dwindling, you know, as we get past 25 years and all, but with especially like with our retired firemen, retired police, some of these may have stayed on as long as they could knowing that they would have that guarantee and so they stayed with the city. We've got a a long uh very loyal and committed staff and they have always taken care of us and protected the city and for this amount of money for this year. I I I have to honor that. I have to honor that commitment that we made to these men and women however many years ago. the going forward there will every year is going to be hard decisions, hard discussions. Every day is that way. But I really implore us to be diligent in trying to find the savings to do it so that we can keep our word to these men and women that we gave 20 years ago. Anyway, that's that's my two cents.

[0:49:24] Thank you. Any other comments from the DICE? As the mayor, I don't want the lead of this to sit on any one of my council members. I have to sit and say that we have to make a decision based upon fiscal responsibility. I fought to keep it last year when we tried to get rid of all of it. So, I will make the motion to go with what we have here and um well, I have to make a motion first and go with what is advised by staff for the retirees to take the 4.18% increase of $13.52% and 52. >> A second. >> It's a first by the mayor and a second by Harry Thomas. Tom, is that meaning that we pass that that increase 13 14 bucks, pass that to the retiree or we or we pay it? >> That is goes to the retiree. >> So, they're going to bear the cost, not the city. >> Correct. All right. So, that's the motion. We have a first and a second. Now, we're going to open up for public comment and then we will vote on it. >> Russell Smith. Russell, please. Russell Smith, retired police chief. Uh, I'm here today, uh, I guess not as much for myself. In fact, that's what Allan and I have talked about. We're here today for the water department

[0:51:26] employees. Uh, and let me begin by saying, Mr. Mayor, council, staff, uh your staff did a great job in providing the insurance this year. Uh we in our meeting that we had when we found out what it was. I mean, it's wonderful. A couple of you have not several of you actually have not been here before. So, I think it might be a little bit important to tell you what happened many years ago. Many years ago, the city promised those who retired from the city that they would provide them with health care. They did this because they could not provide them with any type of competitive pay. Uh I think it was in the late 70s, early 80s when I first became aware of this as a policeman. But one of the greatest examples I think that y'all could have to understand where we were at as a city, not today but back then was when I went to Odessa College as a sergeant to recruit. They had police departments from everywhere and the Bill Cookie was running the the Odessa College law enforcement and he gave us 15 minutes or so and we all talked. I was the last one. And after I spoke, a guy came up and said, "Man, you made a great presentation, but you need to know that you were not even within $500 a month of what all these other cities are paying. That's why the city made the retirees the promise because they couldn't pay us." or as the Midland city manager told me one night, he said, "They won't pay you." There was never any question about this benefit until a number of years ago and then it all raised its ugly head and several of us started having to take

[0:53:28] blood pressure medicine again. But I contacted TMRS at that time. And if you'll look at the first pages on the handout that I presented to y'all, you will see that 62 of those employees made $500 or less in retirement benefit. And I know from it's kind of from memory and I have gray hair now and it could be a gray hair moment but I know there were some in the $300 category out of the water department street and bridge the clerks all the people that did the job of the city. By the way I was in the 49 category 49 employees if you look at that when I retired and I sure didn't retire like police chiefs from other cities. Am I out of time already? >> That was five. Can we give him an extension? That was a three. Got two more. >> Okay. I want to share something with you. Your retirees in those days did not retire with any kind of standard of living as those in the same jobs from the cities around us. Because one of the main quantifiers in the TMRS benefit is the salary. You've got us $500 below when I'm going up there to retire. So try to recruit. The next handout is from city personnel in 1989. It says the city will continue to carry retirees on the health insurance plan at no cost to them. And that is what we understood back in those days that it would be at no cost to them. And then there's two others in your packet that say 85 to 89. Too many of your city retirees who are eligible for this benefit are dying now and the numbers are going to be going down. We're watching. We see it. The obituaries we go to the funerals. The dollar amount that you seek today may seem inconsequential to you. Me and

[0:55:31] Allen, it doesn't affect us, but there are those that it could be devastating to. 300 a month plus social security. Social security low because of the salary. What are we doing? I want again I want to thank the city manager, the HR director, Veronica's been great. Uh I hope the next time when I get a call I'm not out of state with my wife on vacation when I'm told I need to be here on a Monday. Uh but that's where I was. I will tell you that we uh were the ones actually Allan brought up the tier. So, uh but I'm just telling you, you got water department and other employees that this is going to hurt him even though it's that small. Thank y'all. Thank you, Russell. Heather, more comment. >> Alan Gilbert. >> Alan. Helen Gilbert. >> Thank you all very much for taking the opportunity to talk with us this morning. We appreciate it. As Russell said, and he laid this out, uh, and as a person that's been involved with the city for many, many years, uh, I understand a position on both sides of this. As Russell stated though, you saw that when in your handout, you see that the city did make the promise and it was a condition of employment with people at that time that we came on. This was told to us. This was told to us as employees uh as a member of the city council in 1974 1975. That was a commitment of the council at

[0:57:33] that time that this would be done. So that was a condition of employment and that's very very important that that be understood uh because we all grew up in our jobs understanding that uh Russell talked about all the employees 1975 when I began as the judge the clerk in my court was making $380. The police officer was making $580. That was the salaries at that time. So you have all the facts and I understand your position of of what you have to do with the city. The one thing I do want you to look at though is the difference in the amount of people that we have coming over to the 65 because in reality that's a savings to the city of $132,000. Now we're talking about $62,000 here. But if there's 30, there's actually 31 if my numbers are still correct. Veronica, and I want to thank Veronica. She's been her and Daniel been very great working with us through this. There were nine people that already came on, 22 people that will be coming on this year going into the 65. And so if we take that times the 300, and I believe the number is $356 difference per person, comes to over $4,000 a year. So if we take that times 31 just of what we know is going to come in this year, that's a savings. It's not in the over 65 budget, but that is a savings to the cost of the insurance of over $130,000. And each year that's going to increase the number of people going into the 65. We lost 11 people this year off of the program. We gained 11 that came in. There's somewhere between 70 and 90 people still left that can come into this program. We got a couple of them sitting right over here that'll be coming in at certain times. But this other number, and I'm one of these guys

[0:59:36] that any day our numbers are going to drop. They're this it's just going to happen. And we're at that pinnacle where this is beginning to happen. Uh and so it will be making a difference. I believe the city will see these costs starting to go down, not because insurance is going down, but because the numbers are going down. I want you to think about yourselves, mom and dad, grandmom and granddad. I just lost my mom a month or so ago. Uh, and her retirement was $700 a month. Her social security with hers and dad's was $900 a month. $13 meant the world to that woman. And not that she ever had to spend her own money, but it meant it meant the world. Those clerks in my court in 1975 that made $380. By the time they finished, most of them retirement was around $800 a month. So $13 is a lot. $13 is a lot. And so I'm asking you to fulfill the commitment that's been made by the city many years ago and do what is right for all of the people that worked. And and I can even tell you this and three times I recall we were told there will be no payraises because we can't do payraises in order to continue doing the retirees insurance. and we went without the whole city went without pay increases because of that. So this is not something that's just being paid for by today's employees. It was also prepaid by each of those employees. Now the money wasn't the same, but the money is not the same. So it's comparable both directions. Uh so the only thing I can ask you is to consider where the long range plan is going to

[1:01:39] be. We've got a number of years left. I mean, most of us are getting up close to our our 80s and like Harry, we understand the situation. Uh we we know where we're headed to. Uh but this is one thing that gives us or gave was that five that gave us peace of mind then and all I'm asking is that we continue to give these people people peace of mind. Thank you. Judge Gilbert, before you leave, um, what do you think at this point is probably more important, the quality of the plan or or the cost of it? >> Well, that's a double-edged sword. >> It's the one we're sitting with right now. It's the one we're sitting with. And I mean, I get that. I I'm just This This is a hard thing for all of us, and I just need your opinion on it. Well, you know, I'm that guy that looks at both sides of everything. That's that's what I was trained to do for 50 years of my life. >> And um uh I can argue both sides of this to be quite honest with you. Uh I I really could. Uh but you know, we it's easy to say, "Well, let's get this thing down into zero cost." But when when Joe back here has to go to the doctor and because we dropped the plan, instead of paying 30 or $40 for that, he's going to pay $800. Well, that $800 is more than what he's going to pay for the plan. So Harry talked about that a while ago. When you're when you're shopping around, you got to watch because we'll get hurt worse. We can be hurt a lot worse by shopping plans and taking out benefits than we can by paying $13. I mean, that's that's not what I want to tell you, but you know, I'm going to be honest with you. >> No, but I I think what we're looking at is we have an entire group of staff at the city that has worked hard and diligently, and I I can't compliment HR for what they've done for us this year on our health plans, and we've had some guarantees that go out two and three

[1:03:42] years. Unfortunately, upon my inquiry, this this does not. But we're we're at a point right now that the you know 1.562 million. And if we could get a little help this year on this one, next year we may do what Tommy Heert talked about is come back to the 65 retirees and say is here's a zeroo benefit. Here's a different one. This is what we're going to look at. But I I just need you as kind of the the leader of the group, you and Russell, to understand it's it's very difficult for all of us. I I hear it. I'm sure you hear it from both sides, but I hear it from all the staff on where we're going to sit with this. And >> it is it's a very difficult job for each one of you to make. I I understand that totally, you know, and and the employees today. I mean, it's just as important for them to have that insurance and to be able to do that. We I mean, we all understand that. We really do. But, you know, and you talk about tier. I talked with Veronica and Daniel the other day about this when we were meeting. You know, if we've got people that are making $800, $900, $1,000 in retirement, something like that. Let's, you know, can we look at a certain point where we say, "Okay, those people are zero." Now, if we're making 1,500, 2500, $3,000 a month in retirement, okay? you know, where I'm at in my retirement, I'm I'm blessed in my life. I am so blessed. You know, make me pay it. I deserve to pay it. But they don't. Some of them don't. And I'm happy to pay some of theirs. I told them that the other day. Give me a number. I will pay theirs. And you would. We know you would. That's why you're the judge. Um, and we get that you have conveyed very honestly your whole thoughts about how we move forward with this. >> Thank you very much.

[1:05:44] >> Thank you, judge. >> Thank you. >> Can I make one comment? >> Well, so this goes to legal after they've made one public. >> Mayor, that's at your discretion. Normally, I'd say no, but I mean, you have the >> So, is it legal or not legal? If he makes a >> legal if you want to. >> Russell, please come forward. >> Let me just say that. Wait, Russell, get to the microphone, please. Judge Gilbert can't hear you if you're not on the microphone. You ever think that in this issue, you know, I came to y'all a number of years ago and I asked that y'all do something so we're not doing the same thing over and over and over. Read the back of those packets, please. This this can't this is the whole nation is dealing with this not just you. >> Oh, we realize it. >> Okay. Thank you all very much. >> Thank you, Russell. Mr. Heert, do you have a question? >> I thought I saw you raise your hand. >> Any further questions, council? Any more public comment? All right, Veronica. With that, we have a first by me and a second by Harry Thomas. We'll go through and vote for this individually. I will start over here. If you're in favor of conveying the $13.52 a month to the retirees, that will be a yay. If you're oppo opposed, be a nay. Mary, >> nay. >> Okay. Karen, >> no. Patrick, >> yay. >> I am a yay. Harry, >> yay. >> Yay. Tommy, >> yay. >> Item passes four to two. >> Council, we'll move into item B, discussion,

[1:07:46] direction on infrastructure assistance and new residential developments. Presentation made by public works executive director Shane Kelton. >> Good morning again, council. Um this morning we want to we've had um uh just kind of want to have a general discussion with council today. we don't necessarily need any decisions. Want to kind of seek some direction maybe uh as we move forward with this. But again, want to we just want to visit with y'all. We um we've had um some developers that have recently approached the city and looking um for some assistance in some of the oversized infrastructure that we ask them to place within their within their subdivisions as they're building them out. A lot of this, you know, a lot of times we ask these developers to for increased sewer sizes, water pipe sizes, things like that. As as we're building out because we're looking at what's going to happen in the future out further past their subdivision when we go to the next one and we go to the next one, we need to make sure that we have everything sized correctly that we can that we can handle future expansion um as we move forward. Um and and that's kind of on the utility side. And then we also have areas where we have arterial arterial streets. the 64 foot wide streets were the extra wide ones and specifically in the case that we're talking about now is Twin Mountain Drive as we as we're looking at Twin Mountain Drive looking at that and how that how that's going to extend out into the future. Um and there's different scenarios and how this plays out. Um u but again um on a on a 64 foot rideway or like Twin Mountain Drive, if if you have a developer on one side and a de developer on the other and two different owners, then they can split it each with their incremental half. But if you're the developer that owns both sides of

[1:09:47] the road uh because the the thare plan split splits your uh property, then you're on the hook for all 64. And so we have some of those issues going on. We also have another developer uh that we actually the city reached out to them. Uh they're out on the outskirts of town and for them to extend sewer out um to to that far was going to be prohibitive for the development that they were looking to do. So they actually uh went back and changed their game plan and replatted into halfacre lots so they could put septic systems out there. Um, as we look as we look to the future, that's that's not something that we we want to do when we start considering uh there's multiple factors, but the main one is is that as we look at long-term water supply needs and we look at and what the future of St. Angelo is going to be out into the future, we want to make sure that we can recapture all of the water that we're sending out or as much of the water that we're sending out as possible. Um, and so as we as we start looking at that, we want to make sure that um that that again from a from a from a city's perspective, from a long-term water supply perspective, that that we were we're watching out for that. And so we did we actually approached um one of the one of the developers that that was looking at that on the outskirts of the city as well. And um and so um uh you know and with you know another reason is you know we you know we don't we want more density in our housing developments as well. We uh halfacre lots you know does we can get a whole lot more on a regular size lot than we can a halfacre lot with the septic tank. And so again we want to make sure that we're um from maintenance cost and all kinds of issues tax base all of that. We want to, you know, we want to uh encourage higher density developments as we move forward. And so, as we're moving, you know, as we're moving through this and and these developers approach the city looking for some assistance and how how how the city may be able to help help push these developments along because these

[1:11:48] developments have stagnated because of the higher costs. ever since 2020. I mean, we have definitely seen it in the city, and I know that's transferred on to the developers and everybody else is a is just a staggering increase in the cost of of of putting in these utilities and putting in these streets and the infrastructure necessary to move forward. And so, you know, wanting to assist and help move development forward and continue development, especially some of these outlying areas on on the edge, which we're going to see more and more of as we move forward. Uh, as we're we've kind of everything that's already inside the city limits and kind of already built out is being completed and and and it's time to move on to that next that next subdivision. So, as we're moving through, we we reached out to uh or these developers reached out to us and again, we have reached out to another developer as well. Uh again, trying to figure out how maybe we can work together with them uh to assist them in moving these projects forward. One one of the things that uh that we've come up with and and we're not quite sure on the instrument yet. We've been visiting with our city attorney's office and and what the instrument might look like would be to work with the developers um and the city would put in this oversized infrastructure. But we would have a whether that's a voluntary assessment type situation or it's a a developers agreement some kind of contractual arrangement to where as you know we would put we would put the infrastructure in upfront but as the lots sold that uh that were being serviced by this infrastructure that the city would be reimbursed those costs over time as those lots sold off um individually for builders to build on those. And so that was one that was one concept that we brought forward to them and the and the developers have all been somewhat receptive to it. And again, we don't necessarily know what the in the specific instrument would look like and how it exactly how it will work. But again, uh, as a general discussion topic, we wanted to bring this forward

[1:13:51] to council and see if there's any interest in council moving forward with this or if there's other other things that council may be interested in working with these developers to help move these uh move these developments along. And again, to help create the type of developments that we want to see in our community. And so kind of that kind of gives you um kind of an overview of of what's going on. And again, we would like to just get your thoughts. again, we would come back later. Um, if y'all do want to move forward with something like this, uh, we would we would we would kind of rehddle as a staff and with the development community and come up with probably a policy that's a little more has a little more teeth to it and a little more certainty in what we're going to do and how we're going to do it and work out all the details. Um, but again, that's kind of an open open discussion for council to to get y'all's opinions and y'all's thoughts and if y'all have other ideas that y'all would like to share with us that that may work as well too. We do have some a couple of developers out in the audience as well. Uh, Russell is here as well um that I know representing one or two of them. Uh, one of the two of the developers as well. If you want their perspective or their insight onto some of the issues that they're dealing with as well, uh, that may help facilitate the discussion. Shane, I'll say this. This item I got more phone calls this week than the retiree. Okay. There's a lot of hope and there's a lot of optimism with being able to create something that helps our builders and the HBA go through and and help us gain more housing. I campaign on the fact that we don't need 50 or 100 more homes. We need 200 more homes. All right? And the point of it is we need to do whatever we can to help be fiscally responsible to our citizens, but also help builders because every time one of those goes in and gets completed, that's three, four, $5,000 to the tax role. And so we we have to let our short-term obstacle not get in the way of our long-term objective of creating more housing. With that, you're talking it's a pretty gray area. You talk about would

[1:15:55] you talk about putting a committee or a group in there already a group you could work with? Yeah, there I mean there are there are groups and and again we have this has been a we did have a couple of requests come in to us um you know from specific developers for specific areas of town and situations. Um and again it's not sometimes it's not just the oversized pipe or it's not the size of the roadway. Uh in one one instance we have uh there's going to have to be a substantial um increase to to a lift station as well. Um, so again, helping helping overcome those initial costs, I think I think is vital. And so, uh, it is again just a general discussion. It's gray. We have a lot of details to work out, but again, we we didn't want to spend a lot of staff time and waste a lot of developers and community, uh, community folks' time that would come to the table and help us work out these issues and these details. uh if if this was not something city council wanted to support and back >> I think these are let's get some questions from the dis and then we'll bring up a couple people but we do have some people that have to be gone by 11:00 if not sooner so let's try >> and again very general we we wanted to make this quick we didn't want to drag this out or we just wanted to get some general >> let's open up to any questions from the dice Mary >> I don't really have a question but I think we need to be prodeveloper air on the side of the developers to keep that cost down because it's it whatever we do, it's going to trickle down and make that house less affordable. So, I'd like to work very closely with every developer and get everyone's uh perspective on it. So, as long as we can keep that dialogue active and thorough, fantastic. But I I do want direct input from these men and and Tony Jones and some others. So that's my two cents. >> Thank you, Shane. >> Yes. >> Agree. Agree. Continue the dialogue. I

[1:17:57] think it's important, >> Patrick. >> Yeah, I'm I'm the same with everybody else. I mean, when you look at our the city's revenue, our biggest portion uh comes from new developments and then new properties added tax rules. So, whatever we can do that helps affordable housing, that helps um development, that makes sure the city can grow the right directions. We have a little bit of uh us saying it, a little more say than just saying, "Well, here's what you got to do if you want to do it." Um, we can help them, which in turn helps us. So, rising tide raises all ships. I'm we're working something out. >> Harry, >> yeah, just real quick, I'll probably piggy back on what's already been said. I think we need to do whatever we can do to help keep those costs down so people can get into affordable homes. I do not like the idea of putting septic tanks inside the city limits. I think that's wrong. Uh even though today they're safer than they've ever been. I don't think it's what we want to do. But I will have to say this. uh when you go together and start putting this plan together, I want to see how the city's going to be reimbursed, how we're going to track that because bottom line is is I do not believe that we need to invest a lot more in this infrastructure without a partnership. So my comments >> Thomas I mean Tommy Heer >> I like Thomas the best uh I knew you'd like that. Um, I like I like the the the much bigger picture thinking. Um, I don't know if you remember, Shane, you probably do. I wrote an epistle four or five years ago specifically on extending Twin Mountain all the way to Sherwood Way Merchant Highway. Um, I still stand by what I said in that email four or five years ago. We need to start thinking much bigger. This is much bigger thinking. I I like this. Um, so I

[1:20:01] support u moving forward, figuring out new ways, possibly better ways, more financially sound ways for the uh areas that we're talking about developing. So, um, keep up the good work and and move forward. Sure. Shane, is there any of the builders that want to speak? >> Excuse me. >> No, they any public comment there, Heather >> Russell Gully. >> Good morning, Mayor Council. Russell Gully with SKG Engineering, 706 South AP Street. staff has really been kind of a a refresh blessing to come to us and and and really open up and and be pro-development, wanting to be helpful. You know, even some of the developers have said, "Wow, are y'all sensing a little bit of change in how the city is treating developers?" And it's yes to that. And so, I don't know where it's coming from, but it it's great that we're getting to do that. and and so there is there's through the years we've had kind of one-offs of challenges here and there that that they needed a help or an oversize but but we're now we got three of them kind of coming together all at once and so it's like that's kind of a resounding hey there's something that needs to to be discussed so so really and Shane hit on so many great points you know septic systems on these lots you have to have a bigger lot so now it's wider so now you have more street to maintain based on the taxp space and so that's all smart things to be thinking of when you do that. Um how and when is this to paid by the city or by the developer? Uh you know there's mechanisms there's other cities and developers that are doing this. Um you know there's some and we've sent them to the city that that a developer in Lach and other towns are are working together and partnering on getting some oversized

[1:22:04] or extensions done because all the easy stuff in St. Angelo has been done. you know, all the easy land's been developed. Now we're having to reach out and infill where it's a challenge or there's streets that that have to be arterials. So, so, so really there's a lot of effort that needs to be put into that to look at that and and that requires that public private partnership to get some of this stuff done. So, and we even talk about what about the construction of it? Is it the city that pays for it or or bids it out or does a developer do it? and and and even they're seeing these developers are like we were the city was going to bid it out and it was $10 million, but we on the private side were able to do it and it came in at $6 million just because of some of the efforts and some of the way these contractors will bid just because of what some of the city requirements are and and some of the cost requirements are. So, how do we have those conversations of can the developer do it and bid it out and still meet law and all the bidding regulations and and hopefully that can be a savings to both the developer and the city when it's an oversizing or if it's a portion of Twin Mountain Drive. So, I think staff, we're all good to have those conversations and keep working on this. Uh, you know, for years the city's just paid for when it was an oversize of a main, the city's just paid for the difference in the pipe size. If they had to do an 8 in and the city wanted a 16, they only got reimbursed or paid for the difference in the pipe. But when you look at it, the fittings, those fittings are substantially more nowadays. Really, when you have to do a 16in by 8 in T, that is a whole lot more than just an 8 in T. And so, historically, the developers been having to foot that bill. plus the added bedding that's associated with that, the bigger trench. So, so the city's kind of been getting a good deal on that at the developer expense. So, if and y'all have done and helped out with some of that and to equalize that and so that's been a great step to show that you are supportive of of the developers and helping keeping

[1:24:08] that affordable for St. Angelo. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Um, but we're having great conversations with staff and we feel this is going in a good positive direction. >> Any questions for Russ? >> Thank you, Russell. >> Thank you. >> Heather, any more public comment? >> Yes, sir. Eric von Rosenberg. >> Eric von Rosenberg. >> Good morning, council. Mayor Thompson. Um, pretty much everything that was said before I got up here pretty much sums it up. Um, Mr. Thomas, I will kind of discuss a little bit about what you said because I'm a part of that development that and if you it's a section of land out off of Ardan Road and we if you look at the history when we bought this and how many plats that we have done we started off with a major density you know subdivision that was our goal. It became so cost prohibitive over the years that we were kind of forced into the uh the idea of halfacre tracks with septic systems. It was the only way it was going to work for us financially. Over the past couple years, all we've done is talk about affordable housing. And uh you know, we actually got the phone call that schedule a meeting for us to sit down and talk and kick some ideas around. And uh these ideas and this discussion has been uh something that has taken part in love where my partners also built and there's several ways to do it and I think they talked about it. You know the developers agreement and then basically kind of a a work assistant loan from a city that would be paid back over time. Both are great ideas. I think uh we don't have to get into all that right now, but it's two options. And as a developer, we're open to both because we do want to do smaller lots, higher density. We know both of those will give us what we ultimately need in this town, and that's

[1:26:11] affordable housing. Um and so that's kind of what we're that's what we're wanting. And uh I think with Shane's assistance and Russell's and you guys, I think we're all headed in the right direction to see that kind of get accomplished. And really, I mean, today I think there's any questions you guys have for me, be happy to talk about it. >> I just think seeing everybody's commitment and attitude of, hey, let's we've got an initiative to move forward. And I would say this isn't anything they haven't always had and this group has taken it upon themselves to reach out to y'all. And so I commend them that for thank you for your input. >> It's been great. And I will say, you know, we sit on some other boards that that I sit on as well. and the open line of discussion has just been amazing. So, uh, I I really appreciate it and I think it's necessary and I think it's headed all in the right direction. >> Cool. Thank you, Heather. Any more public comment? >> Thank you, council. Appreciate you. >> So, with this item, do we need to make any It's not a vote. It was just a discussion, right? So, we'll just move on to the next item. >> Okay. We move on to item C. Consider an appeal by the public works executive director and the planning development services director of planning commissions August 18th 2025 approval of two variances associated with the LC Guyire section one final plat and sidewalk waiver appeal number one variance from section 10.3. A2 to allow minimum pavement width of 20 ft in L of the required 26T for North Post Street from the intersection of East 18th bypass and North Post Street to the intersection of East 14th Street and North Post Street a local street. Number two, variance from section 93A 5A3 to allow no curbing in le of required header curbs on East 18th, East 18th bypass North Post Street, current private roads, Northstar Drive and Northgate Drive. And item three, variance from section 9 VD1 and two east sidewalks along the existing major collector east 14th Street, sidewalks along local roads abuing the plan development with an RM1 underlying

[1:28:14] zoning East 18th and East 18th bypass North Post Street, Northstar Drive and North Gate Drive. Presentation made by planning and development services director Aaron Venoi. >> Thank you, Mayor. Aaron Venoy, director of uh planning and development services. So, this was an appeal of the planning commission's decision to give full variances for some items. Um, and before I go too deep into it, uh, just want to talk about the property real quickly. This is the northeastern portion. You can see this is 14th that comes in here. This is Post Street and this is 18th and the 18th bypass. And so, that's kind of the area that we're going to be talking about. This is in district 4. Mr. Patrick Keley. It is in the Pauland neighborhood. It does have a plan development zoning and the vision plan is neighborhood. It is just over 9 acres and it's 49 lots. There's 48 residential structures and there's one kind of community house right there in the middle. Um we've had lots of discussion with this particularly with Baptist Memorial and Buckner their their team as well as SKG assisting u with some discussions and our op our operations team uh and have actually come to a very uh strong agreement of going making this a viable project beneficial to the city as well as beneficial to the Baptist memorial team. U here you can see that the the lots are laid out. They have platted them where the existing structures are. They are looking to dedicate these interior roads uh Northstar and North Gate uh have the two entrances that are already designed there. They will make some modifications at these entrances to meet our standards and then they will go in and uh mill and overlay and repave these two streets to our standards. The city already maintains the water and sewer that are under these streets. This is just the city now coming in and taking the maintenance over for that street. Those two private streets that are in there now, they will become public streets. We are not widening the rightway. We're not

[1:30:16] changing out the curb and gutter. They will add some curbing along here just to align that a little bit better along that street as opposed to uh being a much more open space. Again, you can see those structures there on uh with the overlay. Uh right here's that kind of community center. They're going to probably continue to use that maybe as a community center. Uh they have the um the idea of potentially uh creating an HOA that will help with some of the uh maintenance around the area that the some of the homeowners have never done their own maintenance as far as yard mowing and things like that. So they would have an HOA that will assist with those things over a period of time. right here on Post Street. This is the street that we're asking to have some infrastructure improvements, particularly with some paving width as it gets narrow towards this end. We also have a lot of drainage that comes in this way and flows down Post Street and then to add the curb and gutter along here allows that to continue to flow and try to get over to the East Angelo draw. We do think that is very critical at this time. uh we've just seen, you know, although it was a a 200 or 500 year event, we know that this area of water comes that way. We need to channelize it and get it over to where it needs to be. Uh one thing that we did talk about is we are not going to require sidewalks on the internal. There's just not enough space. We're not going to require a sidewalk on this whole loop on that side. What we are asking is a sidewalk here on 14th and that's because we have that in a CIP project. we just don't have the sidewalk funded and so we're asking them to uh do the sidewalk and they have agreed that that would be the smartest place to do sidewalk for this whole project. So what we are are recommending is uh approval of partial variances. Um obviously these things are are still things that have always um happened. This this was the one that uh we were we were talking about and these two and then Post Street. So I think I have on

[1:32:19] the next slide um talking about the agreement that we've gone through that they will do a mill and overlay with proof rolling remain at the curving p uh paving width and curving no sidewalk requirement rightway dedication is acceptable the sidewalks would only be along east 14th that major collector classification north poe paving width uh curb and gutter and they would work with um the design and review team in our engineering services to come up with what that design should Um, and that's going to really focus on the drainage and the alignment of the street and the East 18th and the East 18th bypass. Initially, we're going to they're going to look at curb and gutter. They're also looking at potentially abandoning the East 18th bypass. Uh, one, it reduced cost for us. It also gives some of their properties a little more land. Uh, and it probably would channelize that water down 18th a little bit better than coming through that bypass. So here are just some of the images that we had taken during the planning case. You can say these are just internal roads. Um this is on that north pole uh looking north uh from south looking north. So our staff recommendation let's see here we are doing um let me our normal standard nine conditions and and three notes but essentially we have come up with a partial variance request for additional paving on North Poe and we're talking about the denial of the request of to not construct curving along East 18th and East 18th bypassing North Po that's really part of that partial variance it's going to be determined on the water flow and the size and what type is the right type of curbing in that area. Uh I just want to also say thank you to to the Baptist Memorial team in Buckner. They were very willing and wanted to do the best for the city and for their community as well there. They sat down with us a number of times and worked through these things. Uh also

[1:34:21] with Russell Gully with SKG who was kind of a a person that could talk about this is what that's going to cost. how much is it going to cost them to do this development? So, you know, Baptist is not in the business of being a developer and so having that expertise was very important. But we did sit down. The city is supportive of of taking on this development and taking on the internal streets. We've been able to work through these uh uh conditions and we believe we're all in agreeance at this time. That time, I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Absolutely, Erin. So, I got a maybe three questions. Is planning and utilities good with this? >> Yes, we are. >> All right. Um, is Buckner and Baptist Memorials good with it? >> Yes, they are. >> They've all had input? >> Yes, they have. >> Is public safety good with it? >> Yes, they are. >> Okay, I'll open it up to questions. Mary, Karen, Patrick, >> um, on the 18th Street bypass, can you show me what you're talking about getting rid of? >> Yes, sir. Let me get back to maybe this one right here. So, you see where this kind of curvature comes in here? And so the the Post Street stops there and 18th stops there. And so it' be that piece in between. It's not heavily utilized. We have roadway that comes in here. We have Emerich that comes in and connects to 14th and still comes in here. All of this is getting down here going back towards Bell Street to the east. And so it's really this section right in here that would abandon that would allow these lots to come back. There's a couple of lots here that they would be able to have theirs. They'd probably have their driveway back here because the street's already there. Why? Why change that? Just change the drives right there. There's a covert and I know they've got a lot of red stuff on. There's a culvert right here that's allowing drainage to come this way. We'd be able to improve that and make sure that when that water is coming down, it is coming down correctly down that way uh for drainage. Now, that's for the future. They may choose to abandon that. That would go to planning commission and then ultimately city council for that abandonment. It would have them then kind of replat that area. um to add that into their lots

[1:36:24] >> and then on this. So basically they're wanting us to take over after they do all this and they're wanting us to take over and maintain it like a regular city street. Right. >> That is correct. >> But we will not be getting any property taxes from any of these properties for the foreseeable future. Correct. >> Until they start divesting of the properties and selling them off. Um talking with um their team this morning. They're looking at projected at 2027 to start that process. uh and that's that's when they have talked to their residents that that process would start happening and so that's their goal at this time. >> That is my um main worry on this project is we just have no recourse of of getting any money back from maintaining all that until they decide to sell. So I don't know if there's something we can put in there that um they have to pay a maintenance fee until that's done or they have to sell by a certain date. I don't know what we can do as far as that goes, but that is what I would like to see. Something that we kind of have somewhat of a heart out or a maintenance fee to to recoup from the city cost. I guess maybe we could agree for a term not to accept the those improvements until that happens. Um, but may have need to think through that a little bit. >> It' have to be through like a developers agreement and >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, we'd have to get a developers agree. Shane Kelton to come up because he could probably speak a little bit to accepting a new street and how long that lasts before we have to do seal code and maintenance items. >> Yeah, generally since since they are working towards u basically a mill and overlay project within within the development itself and what we would take over uh you know they're probably at best would be a year probably a year year and a half out getting that accomplished. Um and so that gets us a lot closer to that 2027 time frame. After that, uh, normally if we can, we like to make a first application of a of a an agent that helps the oxidation of the roadway in about year three. Uh, looking at the first sil coat year HA

[1:38:27] HA5 type situation, uh, probably year five to year seven uh, of the of that uh, of that roadway. And so, and luckily with this subdivision, it it will be low traffic uh just based on the number of homes. And it the the streets aren't really cut through streets. They go nowhere uh that anybody would really cut through. So, it's going to be local traffic. I probably wouldn't see a lot of a lot of that on there. But, um again, like as Brandon stated, uh we could we could put something in there that the city will not accept it until those uh until the properties start becoming uh up for sale. So >> my question, Shane, originally this got through planning with no changes put back on Buckner and Baptist Memorial. Correct. It was just come through. So do you have an estimate of how many dollars they're going to put into it to make these variances acceptable? >> Just a guess. Is that a couple million? the street the we'll say the street itself you're probably in the h the two streets you're probably in the half to 3/4 of a million um the uh expansion of PO with the curb and gutting curb and gutter you're probably again another three to 400,000 just again that's off the top of my head I don't really know what those distances are so >> right so it wouldn't be a a far assumption to say they've put 2 to3 million back into this helping us absorb it. >> Correct. And I mean and they're also they've even mentioned within that meeting as well too. I think one of the things I brought up in the planning commission meeting we were talking about is there's no gates leading out you know from from the existing fence. And so they talked about even going back and adding gates uh within those fences for those homeowners, you know, to access outside of of their yards as well too. So again, I think I think uh the Baptist Memorial and the Buckner group, I think uh they're uh they're really conscious of of the of what's going on and and what the city or or the what they're putting on the city's backs. I think

[1:40:30] they're very conscious of that and they want to make sure that uh that uh we're all going to we're all going to be mutually um >> taken care of in the end. So >> Harry, if you have any comments? Yeah, just real quick. Uh I think this will benefit not only Baptist Memorial and Buckner, but also uh that particular neighborhood. So what you're proposing, I think is especially since all parties are in agreement, I think is what we want to do. So thank you. There's >> no comment. Patrick, do you have any more comments? I have a motion. >> I'd make I'd make a motion. And Patrick, do you want to make a motion, Patrick? Okay. I'll make a motion to accept as staff proposed in conversations with Buckner. >> I'll second that. >> I have a first from Tommy Heert and a second from Harry Thomas. >> Any public comment? >> Yes, sir. Jerry Davenport. Good morning, mayor and city councelor. Um, my name is Jerry Davenport. I live in 176 Northstar, the picture you saw there. I'm here speaking in opposition to the city taking over the Northgate community is what we call it. And Mr. Vanoi did a very good job of describing that community. Uh I just say this to give you a little background about myself, but a lot of the people that live in the Buckner retirement community or Baptist retirement community, kind of the same situation. My wife and I, my wife and I were

[1:42:32] ranchers at Sheffield or Pac and Terrell counties for over 60 years. My wife was born here. My oldest son was born here and I have made many trips to San Angelo, but I only knew three locations because we were ranchers. I knew how to get to producers livestock. I knew how to get to Palmer's Feed and two auto supply stores. But many a time I went down through the middle of town with a load of goats, traffic crowded. Whoever built that bypass has got and approved that that is the most wonderful thing that ever happened to St. Angelo. I could get in and out. But anyway, a little over eight years ago, due to age and health reasons, we were 150 miles from St. Angelo was where our ranching operation was. We moved to Tom Green County, two miles east of Kristo. Get close. This is this is our home, our life, West Texas. Um, so uh, eight years ago, so six years ago, I started I had had both knees replaced or knee replacements. My wife started having health problems and memory. uh she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and we've made several trips to ER and if I appear nervous I am. But anyway, uh we started realizing that she wouldn't drive. She just said one day, I don't know where I'm going. Here's the keys. And she's never driven since then. And so, uh, we started looking at a place that we could move to be in town. And we looked at the various retirement facilities and and Shannon was a big thing for us.

[1:44:37] We love the Shannon, but we found in after visiting those that uh Baptist retirement community met our needs and we were able to purchase a house there. Um and so anyway, uh my wife broke a hip but and am I out of time or >> Yeah, Mr. Davport, we've we've hit five minutes, but let's let's go ahead and finish up what you need to. >> So, um my wife is there in one of the the facilities. They have a good number of things that the Baptist retirement community offers. But u to say that they have a pharmacy, they have a doctor there and all kinds of other things that meet the needs of elderly aging people. Uh say it's one of the best. But to say this about the north gate, it is a high u a high wooded fence uh semi-gated. It has patrols at night. Uh there's a number of widows and everybody's elderly there. Your your background checked. One of the things, and I'll say this for myself, we aren't sure if we're even going to be taxed. It's supposedly in limbo and I don't know, you know, and I'm not there involved with that to just hear what kind of results are. But from what I understand, the possibility is we will never be taxed. We're not now tax exempt. >> Th those things have nothing to do with our conversation today. We're talking about variances on the road today. >> Okay. Well, anyway,

[1:46:39] >> and I don't mean that to sound bad. We're with you, but I say we have to stay on the topic here. >> Okay. Well, we moved here. We've moved there and uh we have planned and hope we will live out our last days. Most of the people there don't have mo money to move somewhere else. There's not another facility that off offers what we need like the Baptist Retirement Community. Uh I'm seeing people that move here, they love St. Angelo. We love St. Angelo. This is our home. Lord willing, we'll die here. I appreciate time. >> Thank you, Mr. Davenport. >> Any more public comment? Russell Gully >> RG >> Russell with SKG Engineering. Uh again, staff was really a pleasure to work with. We had after y'all tabled it and gave us time to come back and have a discussion. We had a good healthy conversation um that that really everybody's like, "Wow, that was a good conversation." So, we were able to come to terms to come to agreement. and Aaron's done a good job of kind of summarizing all of that. Um, Patrick, you were worried about tax or or the maintenance of that. Um, and Buckner's got to decide kind of the timing of this. They're they're letting residents know 2027 is is kind of their time frame they're looking for. But until we record the plat, it's not going to become city maintenance to deal with. And so Buckner will continue maintaining and being responsible for the streets on the interior of it until that plat's recorded. And at that point in time, they'll start conveying off lots and homes. And so then then it would come into the city maintenance program only after we've made those improvements and signed off by city engineer and then the one-year warranty period. And so so there is that time frame and and it's like really any other development. you know, the city approves it, the streets get put in, and this one's somewhat

[1:48:42] unique because there's already homes there. A lot of these new developments, it's just vacant lots. So, you may have a two, threeyear buildout before you realize full improvement and taxation on those those lots. So, so this one's kind of unique in that perspective, but but it will come on and as as Buckner goes rolls them out and they're no longer owned by a 501c3 or non- tax entity, then then the appraisal district will will I guess be aware of that and and and stuff. So, um we would ask for your approval as presented and and really happy to answer any questions. >> I have no further questions. Do y'all? >> Thank you, Russell. Thank you. >> Have there any more public comment with that? With that, we'll look. >> You got a motion in a second. >> Got a motion in second. >> We have a first and a second. >> Can I ask on that? Is this anything that could be could the developers agreement or something like that? Even if this is passed, could that be put in after the fact? I mean, is that is that different? >> The developers agreement that's part of the ordinance. So, we're already authorized to do that to uh make sure those improvements are done uh either before or after the plat's recorded. So, yeah, that's already authorized and we'll negotiate that part >> and that's up to city manager. >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. So, we'll look for a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Item passes 5-0. Now, we'll move to item D. First reading and public hearing of an ordinance for RO25-06, a request to abandon an unimproved portion of a street rideway measuring 60 ft by 100 ft south of the intersection in Monagu and Cobberland Street. Aaron, you're on. Thank you, Mayor. Aaron Venoy, director of planning development services. You see this little piece right here? Uh, it's an undeveloped piece of road that would have come through to the south. Uh, it's never been developed. It does have a some utilities in it, but this is in district

[1:50:44] 4. Mr. Patrick Healey neighborhood is um not sure it's Fort Koncho East, but it might be Fort Koncho East. Uh it is RS1 and the vision is neighborhood. Um and so this is really just abandoning this piece so that the rest of these that are touching and abuing it can start development. Um because our subdivision ordinance says if you're abuing right away, you have to improve it. But there's no reason in this case to approve it. We did send out 21 mailed notices. We did get seven in favor and zero that opposed. >> Seven in favor? >> Yes, sir. >> That's like a record I've never seen. Okay. >> Uh again, as you mentioned, that area was 60 by 100 ft uh stubbed out portion of Monagu Avenue. Um it has not been improved. There is one city sewer main that will require an easement when they replat and the and the abandonment does not appear to negatively affect affect any traffic patterns or the environment or the surrounding owners. With that, this uh we do bring this forward um with approval uh from staff. Um basically the the three conditions are payment shall be remitted for the abandoned rideway replat and then the approval of the associated plat and payment will require an issuance and recordation of a quick claim deed. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions, Mary Patrick? Um I don't think there there is it's a little farther east but this there's no um being this is close to east there's no water effects for this property. Correct. >> That is correct. We looked at that uh when we did a pre-development meeting and there's no no issues on this part of the property. >> Okay. >> All right. With that I'll look for a motion. >> First by Patrick. >> Second. >> Second by Tommy Heert. Any public comment? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Item passes 50. With that, we'll move in the closed session executive session under the provision of government code, title 5, open government ethics, subtitle A, open government, chapter 5501, open meeting subchapter D, exceptions to requirements that meetings be open under the

[1:52:45] following sections. Item A, section 551.072, deliberations about real property regarding 3129 Red Bluff Road. B, section 551072, deliberations about real property regarding 7409 Nickerbacher Road. Item C, section 5501072, deliberations about real property regarding approximately 512 acres out of the EJ Woram survey abstract 3945, 534 acres out of the TJ Smith survey, abstract 5145, 545 acres out of the JW Johnson survey, abstract 8134, and three C 3 acres out of the JA Egleston survey abstract 4984. Item D, section 5501072, deliberations about real property regarding approximately 3.179 acres out of the FT Beaver reubdivision of block 49 Fort Cono edition and item E section 551087 business prospects negotiation regarding one project hyperspace and two project gateway. We're now in close session. Follow up and administrative issues and we have nothing to follow up with coming out of executive session. We're going into move on to item eight. Consider items discussed. We've A we'll pass on that. B consider approving various board nominations. Airport Advisory Board Mark Clark SMD3 to a third term and Sam Strahan SMD5 to a second term both ending October 2027. Designing Design and Historic Review Commission Donna Chris SMD5 and Brooks Winer SMD6 to both a second term ending September 2027. Public art commission Mark Stevenson SMD1 to a second term and Raul Ree to SMD5 to a third term both ending April 2027. The tax increment reinvestment zone board Carlos Rodriguez SMD5 to a second term ending July 2027. Are the >> I have a first from and a second. All in favor of the appointment say I. >> Any oppose say nay. With all that all the appointments pass. 5. We'll move

[1:54:49] into item C, announcements and considerations for future agenda items. Does anybody have anything they want brought up? >> I have a first for a close second >> and a second. This city council meeting on October 21st is over.

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=PM-fkHdu4ac