San Angelo City Council December 4, 2012

[0:00:29] good morning we we're going to be a little short-handed today but we do have a quorum and so let me call the meeting to order and and uh let me ask our uh Reverend Tim Davenport herps from the St Paul Presbyterian Church to come and lead us in prayer let's come to God In Prayer wondrous Heavenly Father we give you thanks for this day and we give you thanks for our community we ask that your blessings would be here upon these people as they meet as they consider all the work that has been done we know that you call us to be a place of justice and fairness a place of prosperity and goodness grant that we may continue to become that gleaming City on a Hill that inspires all people help us Lord to reach towards your goals and your vision so that what what we do may be pleasing and right in your sight all these things we pray in Jesus name amen this morning I have a young man here to help me with the pledges and this is Tristan tiffan his name is is definitely one I got to be careful with I'm trying to make sure I say it correctly but did I get it close outstanding come join me and let's lead him in prayer or in the pledge this young man's an eighth grader from Trinity Lutheran School I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America America and the for it stands one nation God

[0:02:36] indivisible with and justice for honor the Texas flag I pledge alance to thee Texas one state God one and individual good job than sir at this time we take at this time we take public comment the council takes public comment on all items in the regular agenda public input on a regular agenda item will be taken at its appropriate discussion public input on an item not on the agenda or consent agenda may be identified and requested for consideration by the council at this time also the council May request an item to be placed on a future agenda excuse me or for a consent agenda item to be moved to the regular agenda for public comment Council okay public comment at this time all right mayor agenda I do have a little comment to make sure I I've been contacted over the previous week week and a half by at least four citizens and I wish will will wi excuse me not will W uh Ricky Dixon was here uh there are some uh drainage that's happening out there on around the Waco Street area and they asked me to bring it to somebody's attention so there there's a lot of water being released and you know we're in the Dr level three so they don't understand what's happening there and and uh just wanted to throw that out that uh some citizens were concerned about that happening I look into that thank you motion to approve consent agenda have a I have a motion in a

[0:04:41] second to approve the consent agenda as presented call for that vote all those in favor please say I I any opposed okay let's move on then to the regular agenda item number seven this is discussion consideration and possible action on a petition by area land owners seeking annexation so we have a a presentation this morning by our planning manager AJ F good morning everyone to briefly give a bit of background before we get into the discussion here um to understand fully the action that we're asking you for today um we are simply considering at today's meeting the exception or denial of a petition for annexation so for the public to be clear we're not annexing any property today we're not asking you to do that we're simply looking at the possibility of starting this process the property that we have received a petition on for annexation is the site shown in the slide here this area is um at the Southwest border of the city the triangular-shaped parcel immediately adjacent to this property you may be familiar with it's the side of an apartment complex that has been going up over the last few months on is near incompletion the same owner owns the tract of of property that we have received the petition on annexation for and so the uh presumption at this point is that perhaps they're looking at that as a future expansion of this project although we don't know that to necessarily be true the site in question is exactly 20 acres in size here is a survey of that site one important thing to note that front section's already in the city correct it is already in the city um on this survey you can see the survey Line running through the middle that actually denotes the city limit as it exists today another important thing to note about this particular property is when this property was subdivided in 2011 um as you may be aware subdivisions of property are required to follow our

[0:06:43] Master thoroughfare plan and our Master thoroughfare plan does call for Appaloosa Trail the short stub out that you see in place today um to actually form a arterial connection through the Southwest part of the community so in the plating of this particular property they put in the first piece of that road on the south side of Sherwood Way on the north side of Sherwood Way this street already exists it's not on the bounds of the survey because it's not the subject of the survey but it is a street on the North side your options again yes could you please go back and show us where it's supposed to go I mean in other words the bigger picture it would actually um over time it would continue through this particular parcel if annexed and would continue loop around and I'm sorry I don't have a map of that can you go back to the uh one the the site the right there that would help um actually it's going to continue to if if it grows as it's planned to loop around and connect to this point here this is Oak Grove Trail which eventually connects back up to Southland and the loop so it would provide this way of continuing through the Southwest part of the community on a route other than Southland Boulevard which is already in place and FM 2288 which is already in place one other question I'm having trouble because of the colors or whatever I'm I'm trying to see what's a street and what's a boundary okay it appears to me that you know obviously Southland is a street but then that the line the line that goes through the site and goes toward Southland or goes right above that that's not a street right that's no that's boundary line that is a boundary yes sir that's correct and I'll will also mention that as I said earlier aloa Trail actually does connect currently at Sherwood this map is not indicative of that this is an older map but it does start at Southland and loop around and come through to Sherwood Way currently so again this would pick that up and continue through connecting to this point here at Oak Grove Trail and

[0:08:46] then continuing on to Southland and eventually Loop 306 probably should have included that but that was somewhat outside of the scope so I didn't want to take off too far in that direction AJ question but that boundary line that's not the city limits right no no again this is an older map that they provided us with I'm not necessarily certain what all of the uh boundaries and indicators are but the survey um is an official survey so we have that in here to look at as well um back to the the issue of petitioning for annexation there is um as of the 2007 legislature um an updated process for which individuals can petition the city for uh annexation to the city as they so choose there are some requirements for that I'll talk about in just a moment um there was a copy of the petition included in your background report and if the petition is accepted by the council today then staff will begin the process of looking at an analysis and a recommendation regarding that annexation we'll also set up the required public hearings uh chapter 43 of the local government code guides our actions in the process and it does allow us to again Annex upon petition areas that it calls sparsely occupied meaning less than three registered voters reside in that area this area is entirely vacant so it does fall within that requirement another requirement is that the area be less than half a mile in width we've also verified that that's true uh with this property as well so this allows us more of a um annotated timeline than a typical annexation would I also want to make sure and make clear that if you choose to accept the petition today it does not commit the city in any way to annexing part or all of the area it's simply the council saying we would like to explore this we'd like to hear public comment on the matter we would like the staff to look into the possibilities so understand if you accept the petition again today you are simply asking us to initiate the process and you are not committed to actually Annex that that's a choice that you can make at the time that decision is appropriate we are also asking you to in your motion today if you choose to

[0:10:50] accept the petition to also accept the proposed schedule that we included in your background report that schedule would start with our December 18th meeting and that would end with the February 15th meeting we're required to hold two public hearings for which we only hold for public comment there's no action taken and then of course we can annex by ordinance which requires two readings and action by the council so that's the process that we would undertake U at this time I'm open to any questions that you might have but again those two items are the items we're asking you for action on today question there okay sir sewer and water availability to this area that will be part of the study we actually have to prepare a service plan for this area and we factor that into our um recommendation to you so at this time study has not been undertaken we simply have a certain number of days from when we get the petition to bring it to you and then the work begins it's not far away though is it it's not far away um to my memory I believe when the apartment complex was constructed that there was actually an extension of utilities um that would move it closer to that side but yes we will give you a full report report on that if you choose to move forward than you J I'll make a motion to approve this item second okay I have a motion in a second to to accept the petition and to schedu yes sir okay okay um so I have a motion in a second do I have any further discussion up here do I have any public input okay call for the vote all those in favor please say I I I any opposed okay let's move to item number eight first public hearing in consideration of introducing an ordinance amending chapter 12 exhibit a of the code of ordinances uh concerning Z1 12-13 Creed Partners trying to keep the presentations a little bit shorter today so I'm going to um move through them and please feel free to ask questions I'm going to to kind of move through the background quickly on this request we had six notifications that were sent out

[0:12:52] we received one in favor of the request one in opposition in discussing the matter with our Planning Commission the gentleman that wrote in favor uh attended the meeting and discussed that his uneasiness with the request was simply that he didn't have enough information to know exactly what would be put on the site so we talked about the idea at the Planning Commission level that again a zoning change to the CG zoning District you said the one in favor I'm sorry one in actually attended you said the one in favor attended no the one in opposition thank you you said favor I'm sorry it's all right I just what you're describing sounded like the person in opposition what you said was I'm sorry I apologize um the gentleman in opposition again was more uneasy with the idea of not knowing what would necessarily be put on the site we explained the idea that changing to a CG zoning District would allow anything Allowed by R in a CG zoning District however in this particular case the applicant is putting in together uh a set of plans that would include a hotel uh development restaurant development and perhaps some retail development on this site that was formerly the Golden Corral site and that I'll show you pictures of here in a moment so we did discuss the matter at the Planning Commission the gentleman did not withdraw his opposition um but we did discuss it so uh that is the one letter in opposition we received again the site is located near the intersection of Jackson Street and nicera Road uh the site is actually much larger than what it appears when you're driving down nicera Road the frontage is quite narrow and then the site opens up as you can see on the map here and here's a closer look of that here's an aerial this is a little more illustr the building in place here again used to function as the Golden Corral restaurant that side has been vacant for some time and the remainder of the side that opens up behind that Frontage off of nicera road is actually vacant right now and would be utilized in the development of this property this is an excerpt from the vision plan map it does call for a commercial type of use at this location so the request is consistent with that map and with our comprehensive plan and

[0:14:55] here are the two letters that we received the green designating the letter letter in favor of the request the red designating the letter received in opposition to the request this is the um auto dealership that is immediately adjacent to the site just a few pictures this is looking North down nicera Road you're all probably very familiar with the character of that Corridor and so we'll move through those quickly but this is actually the subject property um again with the building on site that I mentioned earlier along nicker Bacher Road and then this is looking at the site uh size of that site that actually opens up behind that initial Frontage on Nick Orbach Road this is immediately adjacent to Jackson Street and is entirely vacant at this time so with that planning staff does recommend approval of the zone change request and in the November meeting the Planning Commission did unanimously also recommend approval by a vote of six to zero and if you have any questions we can talk about those now Mr Morrison AJ could we uh lead this light manufacturing and give an exception for what this guy wants to put in as far as the motel and restaurant and leave the zoning the same instead of changing the zoning on the property that might someday allow something we didn't want there well and it was the applicant's choice to go that route um the comprehensive plan calls for this nicker Bacher Corridor to become a commercial Corridor and it really has in a lot of ways the outdated zoning is in place the manufacturing zoning is in place in a number of locations and our staff is actually looking at in the next fiscal year we'll be studying all of the manufacturing zoned properties in the city to determine if they really need to remain as they are or if they really need to change but this really is better for our planning purposes for it to change to a CG that's what we call for that's what the long-term plans are and quite frankly that's what's developed there so while there might be other pockets of the city where manufacturing zoning would be more appropriate we don't really feel that this is one of them other questions motion to approve is present

[0:17:01] okay I have a moot I have a motion and a second to approve is presented let me may I oh of course I was just about to get public input but let me see what you got well that's kind of what I wanted I want to be sure Mr Mitchell was satisfied with this well let's let them okay do we have any public input okay call for the vote all those in favor please say I I any opposed okay let's move forward then to the next item on the agenda this is item number nine first public hearing and uh in consideration of introducing an ordinance amending chapter 12 this is the Z1 12-14 uh I don't know if that's Bassel or basil Bassel L masri item basil I believe I think our slides were backwards I apologize here we go on this request there were nine uh notifications required to be sent out we received one in opposition to the request the letter received in opposition was concerned about the view of the storage on site um from their property that is directly behind the subject property I'll show you the actual parcel here in a minute uh the letter of opposition was in your background report but to summarize uh it talks about the uh unattractive nature of the business being conducted in front of their residents and that they would would like to um see a solid opaque privacy fence to help screen that view um from the particular business it also mentions Brandon's Nursery which is right down the street which had to um require that it did require an opaque fence to be placed I believe that was part of the conditional use that was approved for that business we'll look at all this on the map to give you a better view the subject property is shown in Gray here as you can see a large amount of that property is already zoned for CG or en commercial zoning so at this point and at this time the property owner would simply like to

[0:19:04] see the entire tract zoned in as one zoning District that would make it easier both for use and potential sale down the road so the uh uppermost portion here this long narrow tract is still zoned Ranch and estate or r& zoning uh this particular request came out of a situation where the gentleman was storing RVs out on the site uh and staff let them know immediately that ranch and estate zoning did not allow such storage but that the CG zoning did and so this discussion led to the ultimate application for zone change at the site here is an aerial photograph this is a somewhat dated photograph but it does show some of the business that you see between South Bryant and Ben fickin Road that is in place today um you do see some intensity and that activity as that is again the area where two major arterial streets come together and we see a lot of the truck traffic that comes in and out of the city however there are some uh residences that are back behind s somewhat off of this aerial photograph as well as a couple that you can see on the aerial photograph that have accumulated around the river bank that is located at this location so we do have a potential conflict and actually a current conflict that has emerged is you have a lot of ranch and estate zoning District very low intensity uh residential and you've seen this thorough far of Brant Boulevard emerge into something that is very uh Industrial and Commercial driven the vision plan at this location does call for commercial so the request is consistent with our planning documents for the city and here is the um map I talked about earlier the property owner in opposition is here to the rear of the property the property owner in this case uh was not allowed to get the storage that he necessarily needed with just the CG zoning so at the November meeting of the Planning Commission he also filed an application for conditional use uh that conditional use augments the CG zoning and allows this type of storage I

[0:21:07] mentioned that conditional use because just as it sounds the Planning Commission who has final Authority unless the matter is appealed to council has the ability to place conditions on the use to make it more applicable and fit in in the area in a way that would be deemed more appropriate at this November meeting the Planning Commission did approve that conditional use um they approved it with one condition that allows the property owner to have their selection of either placing an opaque privacy fence between it and the neighboring property to the east or to set back the RV storage approximately 100 ft from this boundary line to keep the storage uh away from the residents the Planning Commission uh chose to give that choice to the applicant and so I bring that up because that is a big portion of the opposition to this request however I'll mention that zone changes which is what we're talking about today and which you are hearing today does not allow us the opportunity to place conditions on the approval but yes sir okay let me make sure I got that right if we approve the zoning uh and the Comm and the Planning Commission approved the zoning correct additionally they approved special condition a uh I did a conditional use conditional use which requires the fence or the setback right but they did give that choice they didn't specify one or the other they gave the choice again so if we approve this then that will go into play yes that's correct they will okay got it that's correct just making sure good question um some photographs quickly of the area this is just looking at Bryant Boulevard again showing the character of of that particular Corridor and looking northward as that has continued to grow uh this is actually the subject property this is looking from Bryant Boulevard uh this portion of the lot is vacant um there is some storage and I'm really not sure why they're not in the picture but over here to the uh right side of the photograph is some of the RV storage that has

[0:23:09] emerged now it's our understanding that that storage will fluctuate over time because it's essentially um overflow from a neighboring business and so as those uh inventories on site are lessened and increased then the storage on this site would also fluctuate in turn so is that is that not all one property the what's it it is one property isn't there a house in the back there is you can't really see it from this angle but it's actually further back behind the the the property owner of the house owns it no no this is a different owner this is the owner that wrote in an opposition to the request again let me go back to that map the residence and the the letter of opposition is from this tract here which is quite a way as of of Bryant you can see that this is a very deep lot so it's very far off of Bryant bouard that's two different owners the person on the this is this is one owner that's traed in red and this uh owner here which is the request that's a vacant lot um is a separate property owner two houses back there there are other residences yes in this immediate area but this is the one residence that we have received um a letter of opposition from and the current zoning is mixed the current zone is mixed the northern most part of the parcel is zoned Ranch and estate the remainder the majority of the parcel is zoned CG General commercial the green parcel let me go back sorry that's okay you know that whatever that color is this area right here is the entire parcel this line that you see terminate here yes if you projected that through the lot that line and upward to this line is the section that is ranch and estate so long rectangular area the part below is entirely CG or General commercial okay next question where are those RVs being stored they're being stored in The

[0:25:12] General commercial part they are they are as required um but again in the discussion of it the uh gentleman realized that number one he needed the conditional use which he has now received um but two he wanted to unite the entire lot into one zoning District it tends to make transaction easier and it makes the use of the property easier so he's zoned correctly today right now as we from this line down he's simply asking for from this zoning district line up on his same parcel for it to be zoned exactly the same way and the 100 foot boundary takes effect the entire length of the property be the entire property from here to here wow I mean so he's actually he's put himself this is Bassel as his name and he's put he's put himself giv himself a limitation here on part of his property that it doesn't have a limitation right now so it's it looks like a trade-off looks very fair you I make a motion to approve second okay I have a motion in a second to approve as presented do I have further questions on the present I have a question AJ do we know where he would station those RVs I believe right now they're sort of in the southwest corner of the site and he may be in ATT tenance t so if he decided I it was his choice to build some kind of fencing or something where would that be required around the the boundary here between he and the uh residential property to the rear and between he here and the residential property to the north okay and but it's his choice whether he does that or either that or to abide by the 100 foot set back okay that's all okay further questions public comment on this side item call for this vote all those in favor please say I I I any opposed okay let's move forward to the next item this is item number 10 first public hearing and consideration of introducing an ordinance amending chapter 12 this is Z1 12-15 Julie

[0:27:22] Snider on this request we required to send out four notifications uh we received one in favor of the request EST zero and opposition of the request this particular request would be to allow an animal crematorium uh it's not one that we hear very often it's the first case we've had of this C type in quite a while but in our zoning ordinance an animal crematorium is defined as an industrial service and uh that will be important later on in the presentation the parcel in question here is located at the uh intersection of Lake Drive and Bryant Boulevard and here's an aerial photograph again somewhat dated but it does show the character of the area uh as you see Southwest of the site you do see some residential development and that is consistent with the ranch and estate zoning that's in place on those lots uh alternatively the Bryant Boulevard Corridor in this area is largely Manufacturing in terms of zoning and there are some spots where that ranch and estate zoning is still in place and this is one of those locations you'll note that this black solid line that splits Bryant Boulevard here is actually the boundary line for ranch and estate zoning so although the aerial photographs illustrate some industrial storage and that sort of activity in the area the area is actually zoned Ranch in estate this was allowed through a series of special permits that were approved by the council back in the 1970s the laot in question here is actually owned by the adjacent uh property owner who has a residence at this location and this is an excerpt from the vision plan map um it does show that this particular lot uh calls for a type of commercial usage and this commercial usage is expanded to follow this Corridor of Bryant Boulevard the light green that you'll see to the southwest and the east of the property sorry Southeast and east of the property calls for Rural and that would be consistent with the ranch and estate zoning that's in place today so it does create a sort of conflict between those two types of zoning and the Planning Commission and City staff at the latest Planning

[0:29:24] Commission in November had a very um lengthy discussion about how to handle this conflict it's something that's not ideal it's not something that we would like to create but unfortunately it exists today and so we'll talk about the modification to this request in just a moment uh this is again just to illustrate that we do have dual property ownership between these subject property and the neighboring property on which a residence is placed this is looking North at that same subject property from Lake Drive um off to the left you can see some of that industrial type of storage that I mentioned earlier it's on a different site altogether this site is fully vacant I believe there's maybe a storage shed uh you can somewhat make out to the right of the property but other than that it is entirely vacant and then this is showing that intersection right in front of the slot um again that long cordor of North Bryant Boulevard as you're exiting San Angelo is is just in front of that as is the frontage road that you can exit onto or off of as you're coming through that area and here's another view of that intersection this is looking East from the subject property at the neighboring residence again same property owner and in looking at the options for this request the Planning Commission uh took the second option which we don't see very often and chose to make a modification to the request before sending that to you for approval so again the discussion of heavy commercial was very lengthy there's a number of things that are allowed in heavy commercial zoning that are not appropriate neighboring uh residences especially low density residen es and so you also have the outside storage component and some of the noxious types of uses that heavy commercial zoning would allow so in this case uh staff and the Planning Commission came up with an alternative to look at a CG zoning District something that's less intensive that's more appropriate for an intersection and with a conditional use would allow the same use without jumping up to that really heavy intensity type of use that we're trying to avoid so the planning commission's modification and

[0:31:27] their recommend ation to you uh was unanimous 6 to0 to recommend approval of The General commercial zoning District rather than the heavy commercial zoning District again would still allow the use that Miss Snyder is looking to do but would probably be a better choice for that neighborhood and surrounding area uh so staff also recommends uh approving that modification and if you have any questions we can discuss okay questions Mr morson no opposition there was no opposition MO to approve is presented okay I have a motion to approve and a second uh to and any further questions from Council okay open up for public uh public input at this time okay okay Miss Nutter yes my name is Jim Turner uh one of the Neighbors in that area got in touch with me about some concerns about the air quality Etc and restrictions on something like a crematorium in that area but because it's Ranch in the state and you've got large properties there that were outside of the notification area and couldn't didn't know how to write an opposition and apparently they didn't get in touch with staff for council member for that District about that but I think that's one of the things that needs to be really looked at when you're talking something like this is what the regul ation for a crematorium and are those appropriate that close to uh properties where basically you have people with large properties that have horses and other animals on it but from the Aesthetics and health and safety issues and uh I don't think those concerns were adequately addressed to this resident in that area uh she was very concerned about the fact that this was going in and I gave

[0:33:30] her people a contact apparently she was not able to do that before today thank you okay thank you m on all right um I two own horses and I am J now that you're Miss Snider now that you're up to the mic go ahead and reintroduce yourself because it's it's all right J and I'm the one proposing to put in the animal crematorium I've done some homework on it because I too as living next door and have animals was concerned however there is a crematorium over on nicara Road between Arby's and Burger King and you can go over there any time TCEQ has very very strict regulations um the smell is not an issue I've talked to employees over at the other crematorium and I've been over there and I've been out there um occasionally you might see a little fog there's a 5% opacity requirement from TCEQ on that um and the smell they say is non-existent there's an After Burner attached um the unit I plan to house inside it's going to have I'll have the six foot privacy fence all the way around the property including my side obviously um it's going to be you're not even going to know what it is basically I mean I have no complaints I've been to the people over on nicera road next door that new tire place and everything nobody even notices that it's there people come up to that uh Vet Clinic all the time they don't even know it's there so I hope you know I was concerned as well before I went forward with this and I did a lot of checking with the tcq and have had a lot of um back and forth dialogue with them so I feel comfortable with it and I hope that it you know puts everybody else around at ease it shouldn't be an issue thank you very much questions okay all right thank you very much um the only question I have Miss fa it

[0:35:32] is her planned use is compliant with this modified with this modified and with the conditional use which the Planning Commission will be hearing at their next meeting so the combination of both is required but this is the first piece okay thank you Mr Morrison and you are satisfied with this Miss Sider I guess the Mr Silas I guess the only question I have in Snider and I wish I would have asked you before you sat down but what is this fog that you talk about what I have never witnessed it myself they say occasionally there's well with a 5% opacity you might see a little bit of um they say it looks like Mist you know like but I've never I've never witnessed it they say it's very rare and it doesn't have a smell but like I said the TCEQ requires all sorts of logs kept the After Burner has to stay at a certain temperature 1600° all the time it has a print out saying that it's at those regulations I get fined if it's not you know I mean they have very very Texas is one of the strictest requirements they have St my guess would be that that's probably has to do with the um air temperature and the heat coming out and you know just like that that would be my guess correct um they say the After Burner takes care of any particles that might be coming out so there won't be any released and I never knew there was a cremator on nicobar no nobody does and that's so it's been there for years but yeah anything else and there are bureaucratic regulations to this oh yes no really oh okay sorry it's all right any other question there memory's fing me yeah I made a motion I second yeah that's what I

[0:37:34] thought over there going wait for the vote bu old age waiting on you thank you thank you I think I'm ready to call for a vote I have a motion from Mr Morris in a second from Mr hfield and now call for the vote all those in favor please say I I I any opposed thank you let's move on to the next item this is item number 11 consideration and possible action regarding a recommendation by the city of St Angelo Development Corporation to approve and execute the lease document between the kosa DC and Angelo State University Small Business Development Center this is a presentation by our community and economic development director Sean Lewis good morning mayor members of the council uh just to very briefly overview I think because you all have seen uh past documents memorandums of understanding Etc I'll just briefly say that this is a four-year contract with sbdc uh to occupy space that was designed and dedicated for their use uh purposes in in that building um the lease amount is $19,988 a year and um would be a four-year lease with a one-year automatic renewal so if you have any questions about that Dave ericon with the sbdc is here um this has obviously been a long time coming with our partnership um with the economic development group so we're excited to see them coming into the building uh in December so Tech ASU and uh city of s Angelo are in agreement on the legality or the legal portion of that yes sir it's been reviewed by right the Texas Tech system both sides are happy with that right now motion to approve second okay I have a motion in the second and need to see if there are any questions from Council okay do I have public input on the item call for the vote all those in favor please say I I any opposed okay item number 12 this is the discussion and consideration of the city's water conservation credit program have a presentation today by our assistant city

[0:39:36] manager uh Michael DNE good morning mayor and Council today we wanted to cover uh the activity associated with the water um oops I got the wrong presentation hang on oh I'm sorry good morning Maran Council we want to talk today about the activity associated with the conservation credit program a few years back when we were going through uh a rate discussion we had council members advocate for protecting our uh lowest users and providing some incentive uh or reward for being ultr low water users and so uh this program was established in July of 2006 it's for residential customers who use 3,000 gallons or less per month and what it amounts to is a 10% rebate of their base uh and usage fees and the IV pumping charge in association with a bill so for examp well we've got examples if you have a 5/8 inch meter you have no usage you you'll pay uh a water charge of 1912 in that case the following month you would see on your bill a rebate of $191 and and the other examples are there also so 3 in the example with 3,000 gallons you would pay $27.73 and you'd see a re rebate of $22.77 to show how it uh shows up on the

[0:41:41] statement we we've got an uh example for you it shows up down in the lower right section to focus in on that area you see conservation credit down near the bottom of 277 activity during fiscal year 2012 116,000 rebates were issued totaling 260 almost $264,000 for people who were ultra low users in that program that's a summary of the data that we've gathered for you um we've uh we don't intend for this to be a a discussion that stands on its own we have other conservation oriented discussions that uh have been requested that we will be following up on I believe we have one planned for the next council meeting but this was a discussion we had planned for the last council meeting that got tabled so we wanted to go ahead and bring this to you and uh for you to be mindful of it as you consider those other things and we can represent this at any time it's pretty straightforward and has been effective uh for those who utilize those low amounts of water they get a little benefit okay questions or Clarity sought on this yeah yeah a little bit of clarity um just little background uh Mary and I met this last week and I've learned how the back office works and so when I when I Spott it if you go back to the water bill it says uh previous month conservation no it doesn't say that it says conservation credit it's really the previous month's conservation credit right that's that's exactly right okay so I learned she has so many characters and that she can make that anything she wants she can say whatever she can abbreviate it however and so I would recommend that we put PR Space Mo previous

[0:43:42] month somehow make conservation smaller and put credit somehow put it in there to where the person knows that that's from the previous month that I wish you can put more information than that in there because you use less than 3,000 gallons you get a conservation credit of 10% that's what I would say say but she doesn't have that many characters unless she adds a title line title line in there and it becomes more difficult but I would get as much in there as I could uh so that people understand where it came from uh because if they got a if they use 10,000 gallons of water and get a conservation credit next month when they use 3,000 gallons of water they're not going to get the credit because they used 10,000 the previous month so they're not going to understand how that works naturally intuitively and so that's why I would make that recommendation and and if any of you ever see the bill and you think H could be said differently or put differently call Mary and she can make recommendations and make changes pretty easily uh it's pretty neat how she does that it is and that is the eternal struggle the balance between completeness of information versus Simplicity of useful Simplicity and usefulness so exactly uh we can word Smith this uh if you'd like some reference to previous month in that line in that description we can work on that I've got a question a comment you know the 3,000 gallon or 3,000 gallons or less users that's I mean that's great I mean those folks are barely using any water you know I think on an average some people may use 7 or 8,000 I'm guessing you some you're right I think that in the past I'm curious to see we're in a drought level three we're talking about gallons and usage how many folks out there I'd be curious to find out maybe next time I don't think you have the information with you are we still seeing the residential users of the 100,000 gallons or more 80,000 if we're in which drought level the one the one where what did I say you said three okay but it's okay I just want to make sure the the level we're in now level one uh are we still seeing the 100,000

[0:45:48] Plus mared or I wouldn't be surprised if we did have some users at that level probably uh mostly weather driven and it has been PR dry if you would like us to prepare some report and send to you users above a certain amount we can do that uh would you like that in a in a Friday packet or would you like this to come back for public discussion public I think but the public needs to know what's happening out there you know you know everybody seems to be in the conservation mode and but I think maybe there's some folks out there that may be abusing that you know that's just that's just me I'm I'm just curious I I think our staff's ability to discuss uh what names are associated with those accounts may be limited right I understand that certainly some statistical information I think would be oh I'd like to say okay let's look let's look at the top 1% of the users what percent of the water are they using if the top 1% is using 24% of the water that's a lot that's 1% using quarter of the water so if that I'd like to see that graph and there may be they may be 2% top 2% top half percent but somewhere in there you get a good feel for what the top users are using and that almost anything and I mean there's just got to be balance in what we do and I'm there's got to be some some effort towards conservation I'm that's fine at the same time I I keep cautioning you that uh you sell water yeah you know and so one of the things he might need to explain to you is whether it's commercial use or or uh residential use that's what I said residential I'm just interest in I can understand commercial use okay residential you know cuz yeah we sell water but if we don't have it there's nothing to sell and we're all uh at the short end at the end of the day so well in drought level one obviously is of four of four drought level can of four conditions one is conserv the first one is called conservation level the second one is drought level one the

[0:47:51] third one's drought level two the fourth one's drought level three so we're in the you know we're in number two out of four we're not in number three or number four we're in number two out of four and so I just want to make sure that we keep some level of again you have to sell it you have to have income you can't put chlorine in the water if you don't have income you can't make improvements to water pipes if you don't have income and so forth so I just want to be careful it's like on the one hand we need to be mindful of conservation but on the other hand we we don't want cut our nose off to spite our face I mean we want people to buy water when we have water uh otherwise we're not going to have the income necessary to run the water department so the you know somehow trying to navigate that is is H what we're trying to do make sure you have income and that you can provide safe water and you can treat the water and you can provide new pipes and you can do maintenance and repair and all the things that you have to do and you have to sell water to be able to do all of those things and at the same time uh some kind of curb the curbs we've put in place historically have been Financial so if someone uses a lot of water they pay a lot of money and the idea was if they pay the money then then that's the balance they're paying for more of the pipes being replaced more of the treatment of the water more of and that kind of thing so I'm just mind and and I agree because though folks are going over the 10,000 they're paying for it you know I totally understand that my my my interest my sole interest is to see the usage that's happening out there you know you know when you have that big fire hydrant spilling thousands of gallons on a you know on the street you know that's that's one thing but res residents ju just curious what is being used how much is being used out there we we'll develop some kind of data bring it back or we'll mine the data and bring it back um my notes say top 1% of

[0:49:54] residential users and presented at a counsil it's got to be bigger than that and maybe 4% maybe there's a balance in there you got to find it Paul you know the typical thing would be the 8020 rule right 20% of the users are going to use 80% of the water and so and so all I'm looking for is right I mean I debated my daughter last night I I told her about that rule she thought it was crazy I'm just so glad you brought it up% 10 but so I'm just simply saying do maybe you just do something that kind of shows us the top 10 to 20% yeah of the users cuz it's going it ought to be a fairly large is there a is there an actual gallon usage threshold that that uh is particularly uh sensitive to you I mean would you think that 50,000 I just keep thinking I don't know I keep thinking if somebody has Ranch in EST State it's one thing if they have you know that's why it's hard for me to figure this out but there's a difference residential and Ranch in the state right no there's not no residential Ranch in the state well like you have two acres of grass johnes see what I mean a guy can have wrench in a state and have a two acre lot and he can have two acres of grass I was 35,000 gallons if they're paying sear charges maybe that's who but I just come up with something we're not picky we're just curious I if I think if if we were to pull all the data for residential users and pick a spot on the graph where does the graph jump up the third cut that off that might be 30% it might only be 3% but we we'll come back with some kind of data and we'll we'll discuss it third deviation and statistics if you look at it it's it's just that third standard deviation outside the second I keep wondering about what you have right there though I I've been do y'all see what I'm seeing the ones who use 3,000 gallons get a bigger discount than if you use none and I just kind of wonder why they all are they all 10% right right so and what you're you know what you're saying is how about giving 15% if you use a,

[0:51:57] standard such $2 250 discount 235 discount something standard just wondering what it's not a big giant deal you're dancing around uh billing and rate setting philosophy and as we discuss at the next council meeting some of our conservation efforts what they may or may not be or could be setting those rates in a way that you think incentivizes good behavior it is right at the heart of that so you have to Define what good behavior is and then you have to build your rates accordingly I I do want you guys to account for the sear charges in other words at some point in time come back to us and say your sear charges for this last physical year were x amount uh I don't know $550,000 I don't know what it is so that we can say Okay $550,000 let's distribute 30% back to the lowest users let's take 30% put it into water conservation projects uh maybe a pipe connecting the South Pole to the North Pole or whatever I just want to be able to look at that and make decisions about what we do with the sarch charge money or the excess us excess uses I can't say it is it excess uses I can't say it usage usage fee usage fee yeah that's why I don't say that Mary I call it search charge and you talking about it is the fee you get charged as a penalty for going too high using 35,000 gallons or more right now or maybe it's well the rates change it it changes with with the drought level right okay anyway I I just want to be able to account for that and and be able to make decisions about that in the future when we go into a different drought stage and those rates go up right it Alters the rate structure and all of that money goes into Revenue our regular Revenue accounts those become at that time essentially the billing rates the charges for those for that water they're not because the rate changes uh just because the rate changes does not mean

[0:54:01] that we begin putting it in a different account you think you can't do that because what happens you end up generating less Revenue because the volume goes down because if my rate is doubled not doubled but if it's gone up 50% I'm going to use less water so it basically counteracts that and I think in theory we kind of hope that it counteracts it almost evenly may not necessarily do that my guess is that it typically will go down that that's the that that's one of the things the the attempt is to take advantage of the elasticity of demand in other words if you pay a higher price you're going to be used less of that product and uh if we were to charge more and demand stayed at the same level we would not there would be no elasticity with demand at that point and and that typically indicates that either the prices have not reached the level where they are a sensitive issue to the consumer or consumption has reached a level where uh it's no longer flexible there's no discretionary consumption at that point so uh I didn't mean to get off in the econom Rabbit Trail this council member is interested in a 10 or 15 minute presentation snapshot of what residential users are out there are doing to be transparent transparency is what we're trying to educate the public that's all I'm interested in is seeing what's what's happening what's really happening right there that's the place to start no matter where these discussions go what what is you what usage is occurring out there and and you're talking about presenting usage in a general picture correct yes sir uh what I what I what I don't want to see happen is that it you know at this drought level stage that we're in I don't want us to jump into a Witch Hunt and villainize people for as the mayor says producing all this revenue for us and yes we all need to be cognizant and watch for this stuff and everything and be very very careful with that but we don't need to jump into a Witch Hunt I

[0:56:05] second that motion well and it's it's an easy connection to make but Daniel has been talking about setting long-term goals we do need to have a long-term view what do we think is an appropriate level of consumption average level of consumption how would we get there it might require incentives it might require uh an escalating rate structure U what it you know the key is what are our values and then what are our financial needs and then try to make make a plan that suits both of those priorities so we'll start with some general statistical information and go from there thank you Michael thank you and thank you Mary okay item number 13 this is public hearing and consideration of approving the 2011 Consolidated annual performance and evaluation report presentation by our neighborhood and Family Services director Bob Solus good morning Council um the Caper is an annual requirement that is due to the end of December it covers uh the past program Year from October the 1st 2011 to September 30th 2012 uh the report outlines expenditures identifies accomplishments and IT addresses some key interest items and it does require a public hearing uh the report is comprehensive and it covers a variety of issues such as resources U barriers to affordable housing and lebas pain AB batement just just to name a few uh here's a snapshot of the year's resources uh we received a little over

[0:58:10] 860,000 in cdbg funds and 432,000 in home funds and you can see on the slide that we spent 1.3 million in cdbg and 691 in home funds uh the expenditures expenditures do include the prior year funds uh here's the list of our accomplishments for the year uh we completed 44 rehabs and 68 emergency repair projects expending over 412,000 in these two programs uh we funded one code officer and one dangerous building inspector to help Patrol key census track areas and to help beautify the neighborhoods uh we constructed six new homes at a cost of 432,000 uh we assisted 21 24 firsttime home buyers with down payment and closing costs uh we provided rental assistance to 21 special needs clients and then we demolished one substandard unit through the voluntary demo program uh here's a list of our non-rf funded accomplishments it includes the 48 houses that we put siding on and we painted through the neighborhood Blitz this past year uh 29 homes were insulated through the atmas weather station program we provided Gap financing for six home buyers to the uh Development Corporation s and sales tax program and then we had nine cases of energent cremation for the county uh we advertised the Caper through the ads in the newspaper and and on our City's website and we made hard copies available to look at the key locations throughout the city as dictated by our citizen participation participation plan plan and we're asking Council to approve the uh the report as uh as um presented okay do I have questions on the on the presentation yeah the neighborhood Blitz was 150,000 was that materials that was uh materials labor

[1:00:14] for sighting contractor costs contractor labor because our city staff labor was not included no that was not included that was a strictly contractors to put up siding and uh yeah the the the city uh labor was a contribution it was it was City labor was a contribution uh habitat provided the paint we just need the contractor put up the siding and that's that was the cost that was the high cost Mr silvas Bob on the demolition you said you had three structures that would demolish we actually had one that was uh we had our goal was three we did one how how does that does that come to your department as far as how do how do you arrive at there's a couple of couple I there's a couple of pro demolition programs one is through the dangerous building program uh they do it involuntarily and I I don't I don't keep those those numbers the ones that come to us are folks who just want their house knocked down and we we provide the cost if they're low mod income citizens we can do that for them I didn't know that okay yeah and we and we do we do that we are about 10,000 two different animals there yeah further question questions on the presentation motion to approve second okay I have a motion in a second do we have any public input on this item okay call for the vote all those in favor please say I I any opposed okay like to call for a 15minute break please meeting back to order next it is number 14 this is the consideration of adopting a resolution ratifying the application for a public health emergency preparedness discretionary funds grant that is I'm not Sandra I I could have told you that uh presentation by our assistant city manager Rick Weiss that um that title is almost as hard as that young man's name

[1:02:20] this morning so that's that's a mouthful uh Council this is a item uh as you know we uh regularly get funding from the a PHP grant that helps to fund our Emergency Operations Center it funds salaries also salaries within our health department um and on occasion they uh come forward with additional opportunities for us to apply for Grant dollars for specific projects and and this is one of those last year we were able to apply for one as well uh we were able to do some improvements uh out at the the uh animal shelter which serves as our Sheltering location in uh events where we have disasters and have to house animals uh this year we have another opportunity to do that uh the particular Grant uh if we get it is a 90% Grant and then we have to provide a 10% match so in this case um as you can tell the what the the grant opportunity does as this side reflects but uh the project has to align with the criteria uh for pH P grants which is the public health emergency preparedness grants and funding for these is just a one-time shot it's not like our other Grant where we get it yearly uh for operations um in this case uh the project would create a Public Health Emergency Response Center at St Angelo City Hall uh which allows us to coordinate response to the public health emergencies um as we are set up right now the uh EOC is out at the airport we've all been there it's very nice but we are not able to link City Hall necessarily directly to that from our conference rooms and so forth now that we've moved back in so in the event where we're having something smaller that's going on or you have a group that's having to work there this will allow those facilities to be linked or as in a recent um uh practice that we had the city hall was actually infected with a white powder in this practice

[1:04:23] which required it to be quarantined so you couldn't have those people going back and forth so this is a project that would allow us to link those facilities together um the project would utilize technology advancements allowing s Angelo City Hall to be used as a virtual extension of the EOC uh will establish public information command and control and supporting centers within the three conference rooms within City Hall and within that um it also uh has some uh components retaining around the server that Anthony uses from a public information standpoint so there's two parts of it uh the amount of funding requested from DSHS and this is 117,000 U with the match required from the city as 11,700 the two components are Pio server and supporting equipment that total is 17936 you can see the grant is 16 of that and the local match would be 1,794 which would come from the Pio existing budget this year uh the second part would be the linking and Technology of those conference rooms the total of 89 uh the local match would be 99 of that and that would have to come from fiscal year 13 uh general fund savings or at the end of the city hall project if there are remaining dollars in that it could also come from that source so that's in a nutshell that project I'll answer any questions questions motion to approve second I have a motion and a second to approve is presented are there further questions or Clarity is that the total matching the the 11,000 it looked like around 12,000 in that it says 134 in our in our handout it would be the the different the two amounts which is 17 from Pio and 99 okay so whatever that total's up Michael I mean that was about 117 but

[1:06:25] I'm saying the the presid there actually I'm sorry in the in a former presentation and that may have not gotten changed there was an an additional component of this that got removed because it was something that was already funded so this total that I'm presenting today would be the correct one that's what I remember yeah okay okay I have Motion in a second to approve do I have any public input on the item okay minus any other points I'll call for the vote all those in favor please say I I any opposed next item is 15 this is consideration of adopting a a resolution ratifying the application for 1115 waiver funds and this is also presented by uh assistant city manager Rick Wise this one is a little more complicated as as you may or may not know that there have been uh there are funds that are distributed to our area uh by the government for uh healthc care uh historically those have gone primarily to the hospitals um those type of things but things changed recently and the city was given the opportunity to work within that uh larger group in a regional cooperation and in doing so we were eligible to receive funding uh through this this waiver 1115 program um that we have not been able to receive in the past um it is specifically uh in our case there is a certain amount of money that is uh can be allocated to health departments um but only if we have certain projects that actually qualify for that so I'll kind of Step through this um in 2011 the Texas legislator legislature uh directed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to expand manage care achieving savings and improving quality 1115 waiver provides flexibility for Texas to expand Managed Care Statewide while Pres serving upper payment limit fundings to

[1:08:28] hospitals um the goals for the state and and this program were to expand risk-based Managed Care Statewide uh to support development and maintenance of a Coordinated Care delivery system improve outcomes while containing cost improve the pr and prepare uh the health care infrastructure uh transition to Quality based payment systems and to provide a mechanism for improved coordination in the current indent care system um in this waver Texas was granted the authority from the federal government to create a waiver pool uh these FS being distributed through two subpools and one is through an uh as you see the first option is primarily geared at hospitals and the second delivery system is the type that we qualify for in this whole uh package we were required to work as a region as a Health Partnership so St Angelo was put into a region with 17 counties kooch Coleman koncho Crockett Ian Kimble Mason McCulla Menard pacus Reagan rynolds schacker Sterling Sutton Terrell and Tom Green and the projects had to fall into one of the following uh incentives that's infrastructure development program initiative and redesign uh population focused improvements or clinical Improvement in care it could not be focused on a ongoing program um that you were just going to fund your staff or something that was already ongoing and you were just going to it had to be something new and Innovative that was a new program or an expansion of a program um in this case what St Angelo proposed as a part of this group was to reestablish uh our sexually transmitted transmitted disease clinic uh within the Angel Health Department as you know that was an area that was not funded in our prior budget

[1:10:33] process uh so in the waiver 1115 uh request the city would basically request $96,000 that would be paid over a 4-year period of time the city is required to in that process to submit a match the match would come from our existing budgeted dollars uh for for the health department which currently funds salaries within that department um this is to reestablish that clinic and to operate those programs um hey Rick have the 960 is it 960 over the next four years it's not 960 a year no it's over four years and and we'll kind of go into that and I'll kind of skip to it now but basically we would be using those existing dollars uh as our match dollars what that would require is that the current level we fund which is about $100,000 worth of salaries that the city would need to continue funding that over the next few years uh in return we would get this 960 back which would then allow us to reestablish that clinic just to clarify that that 100,000 you're looking to take out of the budget that's currently budget budgeted that's not an addition two correct it's currently budgeted for salaries within the department and we would use these dollars to uh add to uh those positions um to fund so we wouldn't be getting any additional dollars from the city as far as matching dollars other than what is already in the budget yeah Rick as I was reading over this uh I think you just mentioned it somewhere about to positions being created or have you have you gotten there yet we haven't gotten there yet okay so I wait okay as and we'll skip to that uh what we would need to do in order to do this it's a the the grant requires us to provide results the result would be to reestablish this Clinic um uh treating those STD patients and also helping to reduce the number of

[1:12:36] clients or patients who are having to go to the ER for those type of visits so the goal would be to relocate this Health Department back in the City Hall Plaza area in the downtown area uh to help one it's by the mo multimodal Transportation site and also close to Shannon where those patients could be referred um it would require the re or putting in place a a position as it is right now one of the nurses that we had we relocated over to Wick and that is a temporary relocation for a year unless we uh move forward with expanding the health department again so our goal has been to look for ways to continue to provide those services for the citizens and so yes that position would move back over and would be funded through these grants just that position we wouldn't be creating any more position well there would be that position if we do reestablish this then there would probably be the need in my opinion for a clerical position as well what we did before was distribute those clerical positions out to openings within the city that currently existed um this program would be for four years so as far as I'm concerned uh when we bring people into those positions we would be very clear uh that we know we have funding for four years for this program we can't tell you past that point so beyond that four years well let me tell you what I'm thinking I I don't want I I support the program uh wholeheartedly but I know that we're going to have to I think I remember reading one or two positions that were going to have to be created um my concern is beyond the period when when the grant runs out then how are we going to continue to fund fund the uh the clinic and and pay these pay these positions and I totally agree with your Phil my Approach has been with people when it when it's when it's a position that we're bringing on board at this point and if it's Grant funded that we are very clear with those individuals when they come on board that these positions are funded I know I have

[1:14:38] funding for this amount of time um this program doesn't require us after that to continue uh it does require us to meet these criteria within those four years so after that if we are not able to fund it if other source have not been secured they haven't extended this program or something then we're not required to but I agree I would be very clear with those individuals this is upfront you need to know this thank you um you you show in your information the 2011 data but there's no sense of history there what where did we come from when there was an STD clinic was the number lower or or higher you're talking about the number of patients yes Maria is here and I where there she is Marie would be better qualified to answer that than me I I'm wanting to know two things where where did the STD clinic clients if you you know users go when they could no longer come to us okay who fulfilled that mission in the community and do we need to fulfill the mission before Marie goes in I'll tell you one fact that I do know in regard to that in working with Shannon one of the concerns they have had is that uh we have a lot of those patients who may come and use the ER clogging up the ER where the ER should be treating more serious issues and so they're not able to process people through as quickly because they end up having patients that could be seen elsewhere that are not such emergency type cases so that's one perspective of it as far as where they go from there you can answer that or if they get treatment at all at this point um anybody that is positive uh that's referred to us from the state they can receive treatment through us um right now we uh refer patients to the federally qualified program Li bronza Clinic um Planned Parenthood or their private physici that's where they're being referred to right now okay and is that not fulfilling the need I'm I'm trying to establish whether we need to

[1:16:41] be doing this as a city or whether the community already has this taken care of one and two I'm trying to establish did did the number of folks that you know this says the um uh State Health uh services and Midland sub office says that Tom Green County had 3856 cons confirmed positive STD cases in 2011 I'm asking was that number higher in 2010 lower in 2010 in other words when we were treating do we have any idea is this just the same consist and this is a matter of where we treat them I I'm just trying to understand why why do we think it's a good thing for us to be in this business as I see it only in Tom Green County because we as a as a public health department we only serve Tom Green County the Midland sub office is region 910 um so they have data from the surrounding counties um I can only tell you what we have seen through our clinic and in 2011 we had 645 patients come in through our STD clinic 2012 for the N9 months that we were open January through September we had 458 patients um come in that we served as far as positives um like I said the number Midland sub office would be the one that have because they have the region 910 numbers the other thing you need to know is that we that as we go through this we have had a lot of clientele in this particular category it's it's not something that most people want necessarily A record of um so this is a group that our Clinic has been able to serve a lot of people who seem not are hesitant to come forward and those may be students in a variety of of areas throughout the city okay okay through through our Clinic um as a public health department we're able to provide we are trained clinicians

[1:18:45] we're able to provide uh the testing the treatment the the diagnosing and we're able to have the testing done at a reduced cost through the state lab these other facilities have a higher charge because they use private Labs okay mayor as I see it looking at her notes it it varies as far as the numbers um they go from 2010 they go up in 2011 2012 it dropped a little bit but that wasn't a full year so it appears to be fairly consistent although it may vary by 50 cases one way or the other okay thank you other questions got a couple questions Mr silvas uh one it reads s Angelo Dash toming County my one question is does a county provide any matching funds on their part or what happens there no the as I understand it uh years and years and years ago there was an agreement between the city and the county uh the county provided a library and the city took on various other roles one of those was the uh City County Health Department as Bob Solus came up a while ago and mentioned Indigent care normally that's something that's covered under the county but that is one of those items as well that fell to the city so no the county does not contribute uh to this to our health department it's run by the city of s Angelo so why do we C call it that St Angelo Tomy what it's always been called we can change that if we want to because the state well but I mean the state well we do serve countywide but because we in the county I guess my second question is the 960,000 that we would receive it says here for operational funding I understand the salaries that we would need to do up front but the 240,000 a year what is that equipment or is that what what happens or what what 240 are you 960,000 over four years divided by four years what what is that it would be

[1:20:50] used for a total a variety of things and and hopefully my hope is actually that it would actually run the program for 5 years not four that there would be enough funding there so it would fund primarily salaries through that time and operations so it also would help to establish a location for them right now as you know we're paying rent out at uh at uh St John's campus so our hope would be as this says to remove it back into the downtown area reestablish a location in a central location that's near Shannon as well as near the multi modal and if we do that then that would allow us also to not have to pay rent uh anymore we could be back in our own facility so part of that 960 would be to Poss so ultimately I'd like for that umbrella to help reduce cost within the department as well as far as our our budget ISS but again if you find a new location are you talking about equipment are you talking I guess you're talking we pretty much have all the equipment we have most of the equipment um so that we didn't get rid of you know we we still have those things but a location facility would be nice uh and so this would help or would should establish that fully within the cost of this program and fund those salaries as well okay that's all I have Mr Mayor Mr her just kind of expanding on the mayor's question is you if if we didn't have this you know there are other options that people can go to and and get taken care of I I maybe a little bit deeper is is there the possibility that having this having this more people would get treatment I mean are there people not getting treatment because they have to go to a Shannon or they have to go to their another place or l bronzo or something do we think that this is creating some kind of Gap in there where people are maybe not getting treatment

[1:22:52] would could it increase the lik hood of getting treatment of people that are not it's just a question I know we're I appreciate you're clarifying my question that's why I was trying to ask how many were being treated when we were in the business how many were being treated after we got out of the business that's what I was trying to get to as far as um when you when you have a facility like us that we that they can provide treatment um the state provides us the medication at no cost all we charge is an office visit fee so when you have a reduced cost versus a bigger cost when you get traded elsewhere or tested elsewhere the reluctancy because they're they don't have money if they're students they don't have money if if they're on a fixed income they don't have money the likelihood of them getting treated is is low because they can't afford it so you're you are saying that that the likelihood of somebody that this could contribute to the likelihood of somebody getting treatment that they may not may or may not otherwise get exactly okay because the the medication that they prescribe um with some illnesses they get two two medications this other illness they get one so if they can't afford one they're not going to afford the two and the state at because it is a reportable condition the state does provide medication to us so that we can offer to the patients at a reduced cost okay thank you okay thank you other questions Mr silvas I have one last Rick yeah you know often times you guys bring us ideas like this and and I'm all for it you know it's budgeted that's fine but when you talk about within a short window we have this opportunity so it's not a done deal but it's always made to sound like oh it's it's there we just need to apply for it so I just want a clarification that if if we're turn down and we don't get the

[1:24:55] grant or nothing nothing can happen is that correct that is exactly right and that's why this is brought for for your consideration um we if we don't get the reg Grant then we continue operating as as we are in the programs as that we currently have but you know our mission as far as I'm concerned um if if things are there's ways to improve our community there's ways to offer better uh service to our citizens and make our city healthier and there's opportunities to do that without cost to the city then I'm going to bring those to you my goal is to to make sure we try to provide those and and yes we may not receive this it'll have to be reviewed and we'll see how the application Falls but Sandra Vel prepared the application did a wonderful job and and I think she she made a good case for it so and what is that short window what uh I I off the top of my head I can't remember we as far as turning in we've got to do that already but as far as when they'll actually to give us the review I think it'll probably be the first part of this coming year okay and having said that I'll make a motion to approve this item second as presented okay I have a motion in a second to approve as presented do I have any further questions from Council do I have I'll say one thing just because I know Miss Farmer's not here and I know she would say that her concern is going to be who's going to manage the grant done okay thank you okay and do I have any public input on this item before we call for a vote okay call for the vote then all those in favor please say I I any opposed all right let's move on then to item number 16 this is uh discussion and consideration of the possibility of issuing rebates of water fees and any action related there to and this is a presentation by our budget manager Morgan trainer good morning good morning what I have before you is uh very much the same presentation we uh had uh first meeting in November it was asked to be brought back and so we have that information for you again uh recall that every April and November we uh evaluate

[1:26:58] the water fund fund balance to discern if there is a um available funds to issue a rebate back to the water customers so uh recall that since the Inception of this program we have uh initiated action twice uh once to actually uh give a rebate back to the customer and once to allocate funds to a capital project so where those numbers sit right now as of the the fund balance the unud fund balance for September 30th 2012 is $4,888 our fund balance uh policy states that we have a goal of 775 days which would be $4,910 th000 so um very similar numbers there almost at our goal however recall that um when we closed out fiscal year 2012 there were capital projects ongoing uh those capital projects were closed out to fund balance and will be carried over into the New Year's budget that will draw down the fund balance by uh almost $1.6 million in um water main Replacements and water meters that that that will be taken from that fund balance uh at your next item actually so that would draw that fund balance down to $3,200,000 which is an item that uh staff would not recommend we take action on at that time it explain it draws it down are you projecting into that fund balance additional revenues you know normal revenues when you say it comes down it's using figures that show normal revenues correct this is showing actual revenues for fiscal year 12 this is what I'm saying is your projections though when you say we're going to draw it down would you 1.3 million what you say about 1.2 million correct one point okay does that take into account that we will have revenues or is that without revenues how that is planning on meeting Revenue budget okay yes that's what okay okay that's really important thank you I appreciate it and I think it's important to know Mr Krueger here with the uh that's the interim assistant water director is available to speak to Capital needs and

[1:29:02] in the water fund which of course These funds uh are available for okay thank you are there questions or comments on this item Mr Sil the date that you have on the estimated fund balance in August September 30th so what is October 30th November 30th well we like to look at the year end that's our fiscal year end and so that is when we close out a lot of um activities and that is the the relevant fund balance at this time um until we get the the final audit from our our auditing firm that's the number we have to work with so another off the top of your head on October 30th you you you couldn't give me a a a number it's largely unchanged it's it's a it's just under the 5 million it's uh due to revenues coming in on budget Mr held Kevin I got a question for you make the track all the way up here good morning morning uh my my question is going to be kind of general and I'm not looking for an exact number on this thing but just roughly ballp part where do we stand on the replacement of our uh in City infrastructure as of now just roughly looking at the water mains that we have within the city we we're looking at about 1 mil6 68,000 ft of water mains to be replaced still to be replaced yes sir I'm sorry that you said that's 1 million 1, 168,000 can you give us many there you go can you give us a total so we have an idea if that's 10% or half or um yeah we have that's kind of what I'm looking for million that 10% here we're 20% 50% so you have three and a half million right and it's a little over a million yes right right okay Kendall are you talking about the

[1:31:05] 2in water mains or what are we talking about this is overall overall General that's the big pipes that's small pipes that's anything in the city limits that that's our distribution system is kind of is really what I'm trying to find we started on a plan 10 years ago roughly roughly 10 years ago of work into you know funding and replacing all those lines and I'm just making sure so it sounds I mean it sounds like a little over 70% is done and a and the high 20% still needs to be done 28% or so is still to be it wouldn't be at that when that at the plan's Inception we didn't need to replace 100% of the lines I what was what was the amount I don't know the answer is okay he's out of the three and a half million what he's asking is when we put this in place a few years ago do you have a feel for what was already up to Snuff and how in other words not at 10 years ago I don't okay so now some of those 10 years ago now need to be replaced that maybe didn't then no the the mains have been replaced for PVC we're not anticipating need to replace those for for many many years in the future you know 50 years plus but well I guess the question how many feet of mains have we replaced in the last five to 10 years do you know that answer not off the top of my head I know we have those numbers that would give me the well I think a way of saying it too maybe do you know how much we're doing per year do you have an idea of how much the million 60,000 how many years will take each year uh I believe about a million dollars has been been set aside on the capital Improvement that that equates to somewhere around 20,000 ft it depends on the exact size sometimes still got a long ways to go yes sir okay thank you I'd like to add another

[1:33:09] question okay Mr Morrison did I get you taking care of okay get Johnny and then I'll take do you have any on the automatic meter reads where are we on that I would have to get back with you on well we're we're either in the we should be in the second of four years I mean just remembering what we said and when we said it we should have completed basically the first year and be in the second year of four years worth of a project okay that sound about right yes you didn't stand convincing that's okay I'm just curious that's what I remember I think we we funded four years worth and we're one year is done we're in the second year Mr morr a piece of paper earlier that has early this year okay um that's from Harold and at that point in time this is from back in July of 2011 though oh really this is yeah this is an old one but it was it's pretty old yeah Mr Morrison I have some general problems on this water rebate thing this doesn't concern you Mr krer this is just some general remarks that I want to make here and that is the fact that there is only one sour source of income from the water department only one source and that is from our our users our users use water and they pay when the water when their checks get to City Hall then we we distribute these in different Pockets back during our budget discussions Michael DNE suggested that we take $1.5 million per year out of the water department and apply this to Street repairs he said then we need to take 500,000 out of the sewer department and appy this perpetually to Road repairs that's $2 million a year that comes out of the water department that is funded only by what the rate payers pay $2 million a year that tells me that there is a surplus in our water

[1:35:11] department of $2 million a year otherwise the recommendation would not have been made we also know that there was $100,000 extra in our water department that we were able to use for furniture this to me is a surplus we have been since 206 been making uh refunds twice a year and in this period we have made two refunds only two times has there been enough water enough money in the operating fund to make a refund and all the rest of time this operating fund is setting down at 50 to 75% of capacity therefore the recommendation is made we don't have enough money we can't make a refund however we've got these tremendous surpluses in the other pockets of this water department that were're able to in fact recommend and we put $2 million a year in the street fund something's not making sense here it all comes from the rate payers but yet these These funds some funds are flush but this operating fund that gives rebates is always low and I believe and I am still recommending and I asked that it be on the agenda this time and it was not we need a top to bottom side to side audit of this water department I want to know where this money's going I want to know how it's distributed and I want to know why some funds are always flush and the operating funds are always low so I think we need to give some money back if we've got extra money and this the my questions have not been answered by this oh would I I think and I'd like for Mr Dane to answer this he's made the recommendation okay I was going to ask you Mr Morrison I agree with a lot of what you said but we didn't accept some of that also right we did not but the recommendation was made and without some basis for the recommendation it would never have if there were not $2 million that their City staff felt was in this

[1:37:14] fund the recommendation would not have been made okay but we didn't agree we did not agree but the recommendation was made okay Mr D that's a good topic let's talk talk about that what we're talking about today is the operating fund The Source it was not a recommendation but a suggestion as a possibility depending on what your priorities were um the source of that money was from dedicated Capital money that is in a different pot that is not the operating Fund in fact that was separated out I think councilman Morrison at your insistence that the monies we increased on the bills be set aside and dedicated for Capital and uh I think you were an advocate for that uh and insisted that that be the case and that is what is happening uh that Capital Money those dedicated Capital monies were the proposed source for those Street monies I think when you go down the road you see many patches in the street there's no doubt that many of those patches uh are associated with utilities activity and that was the basis for that that utilities do cut into the streets they do patch those streets and sometimes those patches fail in fact many times they fail it's just a question of time and so that was the basis for the idea that utilities could participate to a greater extent in the maintenance and repair of streets the source of that money was from dedicated Capital money and the idea was that over time time if some of the capital money was used outside of utilities for streets that that would slow down the pace of utility repair and replacement activity not that there is excess but that it would alter the pace of those utility Replacements and of course as the mayor pointed out that was

[1:39:19] an idea that was not Council was not ready for but but again we're not suggesting that there is uh an excess of monies waiting uh to be spent uh on anything what we were trying to do is develop alternatives for Council as they attempted to deal with uh a streets issue this is where I brought up if if these were two different companies and one company maintain streets and the other maintain pipes and I and I was the company maintaining streets and I watched these guys dig up my street and put their pipes in and rep patch it and the patch job doesn't work I would say you owe me money that's where this came from and if they didn't give me money I'd sue them because they're they're just they're harming me and so what we're saying here is that perhaps water is harming these streets and that they owe money to streets and that and that would happen in a natural course in in in the free market but since we're all one big organization we need to think a little bit we like to put money where it's supposed to go and we're doing better and better at that since the early three uh 2000s and this is just how it works we think maybe utilities owes streets a little bit of gratitude here and payment for the Damage Done on our streets and if we don't use it on that patch job we use it on another Street that's our prerogative but we think there's money due that that that is the point the the point is that the board of directors for the streets company is the same Board of Directors for the utility company today they have one board and that is you so I believe there's some there's some validity in what you're saying I mean I'm I'm not disagreeing with that and in that whole concept my my take is a little bit different that number one my main concern is water okay and as Kevin had mentioned we still got a lot of pipe left to do and at the rate we're going we got a lot of years left ahead of us and my perspective is I would rather and we lose a fair amount of water through leakage through busted Mains through um faulty valves uh such

[1:41:24] like that in fact if I I don't have the number in front of me I believe at the water Forum that we had that will had presented some kind of number and I just 1% I'm sorry 13% system 1% is lost through system not that we can get that down to zero but we can continue to reduce that number down Fair assessment Kevin through the continuing uh uh maintenance and replacement I'm going to be a proponent of if we need to do if if this fund gets too high of increasing that amount and reducing the amount of line that we've got out there that needs to be replaced let's continually knock that number down I believe that that's again water is our largest resource that we have to maintain and manage and so if we're losing 133% we need to be continually knocking that number down to whatever the lowest possible number we can that's the one one perspective of that and the second thing that I'd mentioned at the at one at the last time this was brought up is taking that also from the the the water infrastructure on the streets on the city owned property to potentially some some of the infrastructure within residential homes of offer again and that's something I know you're working on and this could be a possible use of some funding to provide incentives uh and rebates and such for individuals that want to replace you know high flow toilets to do you know Zer escaping to do whatever it is like that that again is part of this entire water infrastructure project and so to me they are hand inand and that provides a a an an available Avenue where we do have some funds to do this and again pays back to the water our water resources and and the allocation and availability of our long-term water so that's my perspective on how I see this entire entire uh water fund that we're that we're talking about

[1:43:29] is that's the primary purpose to me of where this needs to be going and we can be looking at that rebates and such like that but I'd like to see see the step of where we're going with the conservation where we can get something in return for it where it benefits everybody long term okay so you said two things and one was maybe if there money here to to be moved out of this fund maybe it should be moved into the capital Improvement fund instead of rebated more or less because you said then you could pick up the number of feet correct correct so that's one thing then the second thing you said was uh you know if this is an available amount of money let's hold on to it until we decide what our conservation incentives might be correct and let it be a funding source correct okay and but there's one other thing that for me is I think in line with that same if water supply is a main uh issue I see this as look until until the Hickory aquifer water is here until the Hickory aquifer water is being treated until the the dependability nature of water is a little different I I don't want to move money out of this fund when you know you could be back where you were six months ago waiting for a rain or worrying about what your water sources are going to be and so in that case you know that's Mr syus the case where you start saying you can't use water the amount of money that comes into this fund would drop off dramatically because people can't water their yard they can't use the water and so I'm wanting to leave the balance a little higher myself until we get there and so from my perspective I wouldn't want to rebate water now and then and then go through a drought and and end up saying we don't have the money we need to you know we need this kind of assessment or whatever to create the money I'd rather watch this fund be right where it is close to the 70-day

[1:45:33] goal fund 75 day goal fund balance and left there nothing done not not to the capital impr as a true Reserve until we know we actually have that water supply here then I'd like to have this discussion or or like to see and that's a valid point because again when when we do hit as we kind of said earlier when we do hit drought level three while the rates go up consumption goes down Revenue was going to go down and at some point the revenue will continue to go down even further and so having money there in the first place becomes important and we still have to have the pipes running we still have to have the guys out there treating the water we still have to have all that and at some point you know expenses could exceed revenue and that's your that's your reserve okay now Mr did you want to speak again okay no I just wanted to express my disagreement to this okay at this point we have a discussion okay Mr silvus I'll be right with you discussion and consideration of the possibility of issuing and so there's not we you know we can come up with a motion or we can decide to move on from this item Mr Silas I guess the only question I have is Michael historically how many water rebates have we issued two two total two correct since its Inception of this program we've issued uh rebates twice once as a forgiveness on the base fee uh the monthly base fee and another time to invest in capital funds similar to what Mr herfeld is suggesting I think the key there the really once where the customer received a financial benefit the other time the money was taken out of this fund and put into a capital fund to accelerate main Replacements so we rebated to customers one time in in the form of a temporary relief on base fees is that what you're asking M okay yes thank you okay is there a motion on this item or do I move us to the next item and and leave that as discussion I think

[1:47:35] we got public com okay do I have public comment thank you again my name is Jim Turner historically this rebate package was put in there because during one of the uh rate increases several years ago there was a lot of concern about whether it was too much not enough because they didn't have good information if the rate structure is perfect you'll never need a rebate the money coming in will exactly pay for expenses that's Point number one second point is from what I'm hearing it sounds like we re need to relook at the cost allocation plan we have and how the water department pays for services that it's getting from the city already we are transferring money every year to pay for Legal Services uh Management Services and so on if there's an expense out there that is going on to road maintenance that's not being caught in that and that needs to be addressed where every time a project comes up if the city if the water department isn't paying enough into the future Road repair that needs to be addressed that way they should be paying just like uh the gas company suddenly whoever is out there dealing with our infrastructure if they break it they pay for fixing it if they can't fix it up to standards themselves that's a completely separate issue though from taking an ongoing bite out of the water fund to pay for something that's not water and we have been for years trying to make the water department a standalone entity as much as we can while it's still part of the city government that what goes into the water fund water department from the rate payers pays for water and those expenses that are necessary for water and nothing

[1:49:40] else it's not anybody's candy store or anybody's additional Revenue stream because water is expensive enough out here without act having it pay for other things that are not part of water thank you thank you you other public comment okay again I I think we're going to uh treat this as a discussion item with no action taken and move to the next item based on on what I've seen here so item number 17 is the second public Hearing in consideration of adopting an ordinance amending the 2012 2013 budget for incumbrances uh restricted and dedicated monies incomplete projects and grants which necessitate budget budget amendments and the presentation is by our budget manager Morgan trainer good morning what we have before you is the second reading of um what we commonly refer to as the carryover budget amendment recall that this was on for first reading of the amendment to the ordinance last meeting uh there was a change to the background as requested by city council as a motion so we wanted to make sure that that that it was clear that what is before you today is exactly what was requested at last meeting all of the items less the uh the website for $90,000 so I'd be glad to go through those individual items with you motion to approve second okay I have a motion and a second to approve is presented do I need further information for any council member okay do I have public input on this item okay call for the vote all those in favor please say I I I I any opposed item number 18 this is consideration of adopting a resolution authorizing the city manager or his designate to execute a lease agreement with the Stan Angelo Performing Arts Coalition providing for the lease of Office Space by saac on the west mezanine of the city hall building good morning mayor and Council we started to talk about this item at the last council meeting and Council desired more background information recall that uh we have been in

[1:51:44] discussions with St Angelo Performing Arts Coalition for some time now regarding the management of the auditor and the possible proposed creation of a Performing Arts Center that would become part of a Performing Arts campus and the possible occupation of the West me the the area known as the West mezzanine uh in City Hall by the by saac St Angel Performing Arts Coalition the way this started was with originally an overarching agreement a development and operating agreement that would be followed by an occupancy agreement and a management agreement so the first thing uh earlier this spring Council authorized me to negotiate and execute an agreement The First Agreement the overarching agreement and they gave some specifics of what they expected to be in there and so U I think we'll go through that now if that's all right hit some of those highlights to revisit where we were that we are substantially there and today's action will be on one of those subordinate or uh secondary agreements to occupy space with the management agreement still yet to come so we'll start with that development and operating agreement we'll hit the highlights uh key terms sapac has agreed to contribute 2.5 million uh toward the auditorium renovation specifically there that that money will be used toward expanding that backstage area once they

[1:53:47] occupy space in City Hall they will reimburse the city uh for that leas the expenses associated with that lease base typically known as utilities however uh at 100% of that cost we won't subsidize that cost however to the extent that we can uh benefit by sharing the service and get a better rate they would like to participate the term 20 years with three 10-year option renewals contingent on performance as Council suggested $2 ticket fee for to be set aside for maintenance of the auditorium forc facility an occupancy tax allocation which starts at 5% with a plus and minus feature depending on performance and gradually each year moves down to a level at approximately 3% also with performance upgrades and downgrades the details of that would need to be worked out in the op in the management agreement which is not before you yet one of the other commitments in that agreement is that they will build the Performing Arts Center and will spend at least $10 million in that renovation that's the former coch Warehouse they will also create an operating endowment of at least $1 million to assist in operating that facility some assurance that they will have Financial Resources to continue to operate sapac will manage the renovated anex and Performing Art Center they will provide box office services so when you go to buy tickets they will be providing that service they will demonstrate their

[1:55:51] charitable Mission by providing access to a broad range of citizenry that was also a key Council item as demonstrates your charitable Mission be an annual report provided to the city financial and operational in nature what are you doing how are you doing financially and then event type Insurance similar to what we do now the city ures the facil the event is ured through a separate policy purchased by the promoter in that agreement the city agreed to agree that the auditorium is a city project we have money already on hand to do some renovation work in the auditorium they will contribute the 2.5 million but we agree to manage the project in other words execute the project uh in draw up specs designs that kind of thing in cooperation with them but our birth burden is to execute the project we cooperate on naming rights to the extent Allowed by our existing contract so you have not subordinated your rights you've just agreed to cooperate and listen to proposals you still have the authority we'll allow them to subgrant occupancy tax revenues with sack Act the current Arts recipient they they for the most part are managing those as subg grants most of that money gets subg granted out we're we're in this contract we are laying the groundwork to allow sapac the same Authority also the same burden that goes with that to do so in accordance with state laws and Council directives we will provide property insurance on the auditorium again we

[1:57:55] ensure the facility they or their promoters or the people they rent to will ensure the event and we agree to lease the mezzanine area for a nominal fee to save back explain and we I'm sorry go jump at the same time what does that mean is this a all the time or when when they requested again the mezzanine area that they will occupy their part okay so not okay for a nominal fee the other one okay I got you and what is that nominal fee yes it's specified now moving from the overall agreement to the occupancy lease agreement that's specified as $1 and if you're ready we could if you're done with this part we could move into the specifics of that lease would you like me to go back over these right quick so you're in good shape or are you good and ready to move to the occupancy the lease would be $1 per year for the West part of the mezzanine almost 1600 square foot yes sir and I've got some details on that when you're ready I can move right into that okay Mr Alexander I'm making sure you're ready to move forward I am ready to move forward but I just want to say that so far what I'm seeing is a lot of money basically being forked out by saac a lot millions and millions and millions of dollars and I just want to make sure that we're clear on that we don't get sidetracked on that dollar cuz there's millions of dollars here that they are responsible for and the City of Stan Angelo the citizens benefit okay that's what our job is here is to to work for the citizens and I'm seeing a very good partnership in the making please continue that's that's my viewpoint well my role today will be to bring the numbers I just don't want to get sidetracked to the dollar I don't because there's millions of dollars here it'll be your role to determine whether that's good value or not okay one one

[1:59:58] question Mr held uh we talked about this before when we went through the whole discussion and I but but remind me uh the $2 ticket fee for maintenance uh that's we have the opportunity to raise that at some point in the future do we not yes sir okay cuz that that's what I want to make sure cuz that what what the hope is is that we can that that doesn't create we don't want to create a burden on the city while $2 today with every ticket may be fine 30 years from now $2 a ticket ain't squat so that's that is a a allowable variable where we can change that yes and they would be in favor of that too the $2 ticketing fee fee collected on each ticket to be set aside held by the city administered by a board containing some sapac Representatives some City Representatives expenditures in excess of 40,000 uh require city council approval and um un votes which are tied uh shall be settled by city council so uh they sapac views that as positive also it's a resource to them to keep the facility in good shape uh which helps them uh manage the property you know that's that's the challenge around here for everything we do whether it's streets or buildings or facilities of other another nature how do we keep the maintenance up generate the revenue so they're in favor of resources to to maintain so with that with that Foundation laid let's move in I'm sorry go ahead question yes sir uh your first bullet point how soon if and when this gets voted on how soon does the 2.5 million how soon is it contributed to us or to the project is it is money in hand does it happen right away or what how does that work well Mr Lewis would have to tell you if he could I'm not sure he'll be able to talk about the current state of what collections he's received

[2:02:02] or pledges he's received I would anticipate that many of his pledges are contingent upon satisfactory con contract execution with the city um keep going we good and so we can get back into that there are specific spefic um requirements associated with timing for example from the finance director's cons uh perspective we want the 2.5 million in hand when we get ready to award bids we we want the assurance that the money's there and so we want a specific cash flow kind of uh schedule that we can rely on so as we work through that that was my perspective we need the cash so we can execute the project but we can get into more details if if you'd like as we go through you good I guess the only thing is kind of standing out right now now the roof of the auditorium that's already been done renovated or is this could no it's not it's not done we've brought that to y'all that is an item that $100,000 well it was I don't remember the exact total but it was an item that we're talking about with risk as far as redoing it so that is in the progress now as far as getting all the the specs and all that sort of stuff drawn up to bid that short of that the auditorium project is really on hold right now correct right we placed that because we didn't want to other than the awaiting funding and okay other than the infrastructure that we needed to do that all tied into City Hall like some sewage pipes and those kind of things that were going to mess up things if you didn't do them up front we did those with the city hall project otherwise we're on hold okay I'm good okay now remember we just covered the details or some of the details associated with the overall agreement which guides us as we prepare an

[2:04:05] agreement which allows them to occupy space in the mezanine and another agreement which has not yet been developed to manage the facility so not done yet OCC occupy the mezzanine is what we want to talk about now highlights of that agreement term 20 years with two 10-year extension options base rent a dollar per year would now be good time to talk about those details or would you like me to continue through and come back to a dollar Mr Morrison makes no difference we're going to have to talk about them sometime anytime you want to approach it Michael are you talking about the draft office lease or where where should we go dep office lease agreement by and between the city of St Angelo and the San Angelo Performing Arts Coalition my copy doesn't have the big draft across the front okay we'll come back if that's all right Mr Morrison there may be others permitted use permitted use is is office use to satisfy the overall agreement agreement requ requirements excuse me the tenant accepts the property as is improvements necessary to facilitate their activity will be their burden to the extent that they we do things in conjunction or together they will reimburse the city for those costs one of their requirements is that they'll use the space to perform their or s satisfy their obligations under the development and operating agreement the agreement we just went through one of the things that we have talked about before is their desire to suble this to one of their member

[2:06:11] organizations that is something that will come on the heels of this and we should discuss that if you have concerns there or or need more detail we agree to provide essential services in other words we won't shut their power off we agree to provide Power water that kind of thing we agree to again we're talking about the mezzanine now repair replace or maintain the roof the foundation the common areas exterior walls again the outside framework is our responsibility we agree to not unreasonably withhold consent to a proposed assignment in other words if if if they want to assign the lease we should have sound basis for objecting in the event of assignment they're still on the hook for the requirements they still need to satisfy the requirements in the uh in this agreement and in the the development and operating agreement tenant shall provide an annual report that's consistent with what's in the development and operating agreement in the event that the facility is destroyed the tenant has the option if we are unable to provide restore the space within 180 days the tenant has option to terminate the agreement that's reasonable the tenant and the landlord agree to comply with the other agreement the

[2:08:12] operating the development and operating lease and the terms of this lease so our agreement is includes two leases at this point or two two contracts at this point now that's the substance of those terms again subsequent to or pursuant to that First Agreement this agreement spe gives some specifics for occupancy similar term a dollar a year 1670 Square ft um and then some details about what they can can do with the space what their obligations and our obligations are let's if it's all right let's move to since the value Michael since you mentioned the 1670 squ ft what tell me what that 241 uh plus an allocation 241 ft of common area where what is that talking about what area good question within the agreement we attempted to develop a formula we we did develop a formula for allocating cost you costs uh that's the primary example when you occupy a space with common areas they'll occupy the mezzanine and that's what we tend to talk about but they're going to use the hallways the entryways the doorways getting to that space it's not an isolated space or a a building that stands on its own it is part of another facility and their employees and tenant or their employees and customers will utilize our common area so we ask they pay a portion or that we could allocate a portion of the expense of maintaining those common areas to that space and that estimate is approximately 241 Ft worth of common area that they would also assist in maintaining so excellent question for total 1911 Square ft yes

[2:10:16] sir uh getting back to the dollar per year let substance of the exchange they contribute $2.5 million at least $2.5 million in a onetime contribution upfront in turn we agreed to let them occupy some of our space 1,670 Square ft for 20 years with possible two 10year extensions so the question is how do you treat the $2.5 million the easiest way to think of it is if we had borrowed the 2.5 $5 million if we borrowed that money to execute those backstage Renovations or the annex Renovations construction and Renovations we would have annual Debt Service that makes it easy from a budgeting standpoint to think about what our annual burden what the annual cost would be to acquire $2.5 million so if Vince tall ball guy was standing here saying here's 2.5 million he would be asking for a commitment for annual Debt Service if you were to service that debt over 30 years we could expect to pay in the neighborhood of 3% 30 years is probably a reasonable life expectancy before we would um attempt any Renovations we would expect some sort of uh satisfactory service out of the bulk of those created assets for that time period so if you advertised or serviced $2.5 Million worth of borrowing over 30 years at 3% your annual Debt Service would be approximately $127,000 so if we think of this in terms of 30 years worth of exchange we get the equivalent of 2.5 million 30 years 3% $127,000 per

[2:12:18] year if you equate that to the Ming space say it say that one more time Michael if we borrowed $2.5 million and repaid it over 30 years with and we paid an interest rate of 3% we'd have an annual payment of $127,000 per year okay so if you if you if in your mind you're thinking they're going to prepay rent and we're going to give them a little discount for prepaying it we could also assume that the two .5 million upfront is roughly equivalent to $127,000 per year does that make sense it does we wanted we wanted some perspective on that how does that compare to the market we're not experts on the market but we do have real estate office real estate that we lease we approved an agreement earlier in this agenda that was approximately $75 a foot per year 750 or 7 60 per foot per year in the BRC in the State Office Building the number is $149 C per foot per year with a 10cent per year escalator the year uh loan 127,000 is a 30 or 20 which one was it 30 30 thank you 30 if you break that if you divide that 127 up by the number of square feet what you get is $76 and change per square foot per year so the question is how does 20 how does $76 per square foot per year for 30 years compare to what we get at the State Office Building which is $149 per square foot per year on that basis strictly a financial comparison there are other factors at work on that basis the terms are favorable the 2.5 million Compares very favorably against what we would get for that space if we

[2:14:21] were getting State Office Building rates now I agree that the space is in my opinion more desirable very nice space um you'll have to determine whether you think that's um fair value if you took the most extreme position and said no interest we're just going to allocate $2.5 million over 50 years we're going to let them be in there for 50 years we're not going to pay any interest the same comparison yields a per square foot per year value of $29.94 so if there was no interest AC crewing on that and we just allocated we just split it up 50 Ways that's $50,000 per year divided by the 1670 is just under $30 per square foot compared to what we get now which is uh 11 1149 go ahead okay I'll get there um are you through sir yes sir okay uh Mr Morrison Mr syus were you about to speak also so I'll acknowledge you next okay Mr Morrison okay while we're doing our basis of uh per square foot and rent and all of this we talked just a little while ago about the health department and the grant that we applied for and we're going to reestablish our health department uh Rick says that we're renting office space somewhere for the health department now does that cost us more than a dollar a year on rental yes we've got 1670 Square ft right there in the city hall and Rick says we need to have this close to the city hall and we have it close to the Shannon we've got, 1670 square foot that is sitting in our city hall not being used right now Rick says we're either paying rent or we're going to have to buy a building to put the the health department in will we be able to buy a health dep department for $11 a square foot we'll be able to

[2:16:24] buy another building and and provide the insurance and the utilities and the water and the electricity for the dollar amount that you're talking about here we're talking about giving away the citizens part that they own in this city hall for a dollar a year and I I realize I I appreciate your figures there but when we go out and buy another building and get the health department set up in it you're taking a whole lot of that money away because I doubt that we're going to be able to buy or build a building for less than the 75 to $90 a square foot that it cost to build and when you when you go buy another building to put the health department in you completely dissolved everything that You' saved with saf tax and we've already got the room we've got the building we've got utilities it's already there all we have to do is set our health department up into this area but instead we let someone have it for a dollar and we go out and pay rent or buy another building to take care of city services so explain that one to me please sir I think this question is a priority of what you want to use your space for at the end of the day is is really where for the discussion it's not a question you can answer I I can explain it we have a community vision statement that we got our vision statement from we just took the first line altered it a little bit but if you continue to read down there St Angeles smalltown character and community Community Spirit uh it says residents will enjoy s Angela small town character and Community spirit and take advantage of ample social cultural and recreational opportunities s Angela exceptional quality of life will continue to attract new businesses and it goes on from there there's our values right there and so we place value in the Arts and what they're doing and that's why we prioritize this if this was about money only then I I think Mr Morrison begins to make a lot of sense and we do need to go that direction but we have other benefits and other values we're looking at here and I think this is down the middle right where St Angelo wants

[2:18:28] to go if we're going to be the most desirable midsize City in the state of Texas in the next 15 years and we we definitely need to do this I mean this is a wonderful deal this is perfect this is the way we need to be thinking here okay Mr Morrison you're not through I'm not through go ahead my belief and my responsibility is to the citizens and when the citizens own something they bought this 80 some odd years ago and they paid for it with real dollars they maintained it throughout this entire 80 years they put $3.5 million a half cent sales tax into this in the last three years to restore this thing and then we turn around and rent it for $1 and then those same taxpayers have to go out and buy another building or pay rent to house something that could be housed in this very area that they already own it is not fiscally responsible for our taxpayers and the taxpayers are the ones I am responsible to they are the ones that I worry about and it is not a fiscal responsible thing for us to give away mezanine space to someone else simply because they asked for it and then have to go buy something else to take care of city services okay Mr silvas I'm having difficulty understanding cuz Michael you're throwing out 30 years and 30 years and 30 years I can see the three 10year options for Renewal I see that but right away I see this thing as a 20e lease okay 20 years so 20 years 2.5 million over 20 years I'm coming up with 125,000 divided by say 12 months $10,400 okay but if you do 30 years and I don't see where you're coming up with 30 years other than the three 10year options for renewal then that drops down to $83,000 a month or a year for divided by 12 months is $6,900 so are we not talking 20 years right away because 20 years from now we

[2:20:32] won't be here in 20 years that Council that's in place they will talk renewal options then will they not so aren't we just talking 20 years now we can certainly what where are you coming up with 30 that's where I'm trying to understand the 30 normal well it's more conservative the number I think the asset should last certainly more than 20 years but it says 20 20 it says 20 he was using he was using a borrow I have 20 number I have a number for 20 if you'd like to talk about that you bet well I've got the 20 but it's it reads 20 the agreement the the contract that's that's in front of us reached 20 so you're throwing me a curve when you you're using 30 so well I I've got numbers for 20 30 give me 20 40 and 50 but aren't we being presented with a 20 20 with options for extension you bet and if you'd like to go through it for 20 let's we can do that if you'd like in fact why don't we if you don't mind you see that's where I I I I had I didn't my numbers didn't Jive because the 2.5 million over 20 I see the 125,000 but you're saying he had an interest rate in his though he see he's saying if we had to borrow the 2 and5 million to do the renovations instead of them giving us the 25 million if if we said we're going to do these Renovations and we're going to borrow the 25 million that's where the numbers aren't diving to some degree it's a he was saying 3% and 30 years to pay it back so his was a loan he was describing do the two the 20-year loan 20 okay $2.5 million borrowed uh UPF front repaid over 20 years within a payment each year we get a little better rate when you go shorter term so I've used is 25% for that rate uh that annual payment would be $160,000 per month I mean sorry per year so your annual amount 160,000 you spread that over, 1670 ft to

[2:22:38] get a comparable per square foot per year amount that's $96 per square foot per year we charge for the State Office Building $11.49 so roughly eight times eight and a half times Market what we're the our Market is at the State Office Building and so that's the exchange is we get a okay okay Mr um Adams please we've been able to come this far because we've been in concert with one another and we have worked as a partnership and I think uh Mr Alexander was right when he pointed out the dollar a year pales in comparison when you look at the benefit to the citizens the city and our culture I think it's very important that we stay focused on where we want our city to be and what we have to do to get there and I also think it's very important that we look at how uh Innovative St Angelo has been and how uh aggressive we've been in improving the lifestyle and the quality of our of our city uh for for her citizens so with that being being said regard regard to whether we go 20 whether you look at this from a 20-year perspective or a 30-year perspective it's going to benefit the citizens of Stan Angelo it's going to benefit us um there have been several instances where we've made concessions in order to make something work and I think that a dollar a year is one of those concessions that needs to be made in order to make this work and make it a win-win situation saac has given up an awful lot to go into partnership with us and I think we need to take advantage of it okay just a second is that a motion Mr Adams I make a motion to approve Pres I have a motion to approve as presented in a second behind that Mr Morrison I guess this is about a good of time any to make my closing comments several years ago I think it was Rick Weiss that negotiated a contract with Carlo as the concessionary for the city and in this contract it was very specifically said the city venues

[2:24:42] that we own that he would be able to sell concessions and there was a very specific instruction set where as he sold these is as he operated his concessions he would man them he would take care of them the city would have no no part in it and for every dollar he sold he would give a percentage to the city Carlo has been a wonderful concessionaire I have heard zero complaints and this is probably one of the best contracts that this city has ever built because the city and Carlo both felt they got the best end of the deal it's been a wonderful work it has worked very very well I have nothing against private Public Partnerships in fact we've seen them before I've had a half a dozen people emailing me and sending me stuff this last couple of weeks and my opinion has changed somewhat I've softened somewhat on this because I see the importance of public private Partnerships I'm not opposed to public private Partnerships if they are negotiated correctly and both sides are able to get something out of it I'm not opposed to saac I appreciate what they're doing they're making some tremendous Investments I'm opposed to this contract I am opposed to the city giving everything and saac giving part I do not fear it feel that it is a fair contract to the citizens I feel that saac is getting by far the better part of this contract and leaving the city and the citizens and the rate payers and the people that built this city they are getting very little we have zero oversight over SE pac's board as a as a council we have no vote on this board we have no voice on this board we have no objection or or or right of objection to anything that they do we are simply giving them the auditorium and the mezzanine and saying go out and take care of it we have no control over them whatsoever if this was a contract that saac brought to us that was equal that

[2:26:44] the city would benefit and sapac would benefit if it were a contract that were similar to the the one that Rick negotiated with Carlo if it was a contract that worked on a percentage basis so we knew exactly what we were getting exactly what they had exactly what they could do and could not do I wouldn't have a problem with this I don't have a problem with the public private partnership I have a problem with this specific public private partnership because the city loses and I am responsible to protect the citizens and the rights of the citizens and the property that the citizens in this city own and I do not feel that they are getting a good bargain in this contract and is such I will not support it okay further comment from Council okay is there any public input on this item okay call for the vote all those in favor please say I I I I I they're for n and those opposed i i five to one thank you let's move to item number 19 consideration and possible action regarding a recommendation by the city of St Angelo Development Corporation to approve the expenditure of up to $23 million is that let's put those I got to take them on take them off there you go $23,000 pulling that item pulling that item pull okay thanks let's move on to item number 20 then item 20 here we go man I need a lot of help today man gosh something was wrong with my glasses 20 I was like 23 million anyway 20 discussion and consideration of closing city of San Angelo offices on Monday December the 31st 2012 um and this is requested by council members Adams and Silva so would one of you like to lead that discussion I ask that this be brought back uh simply

[2:28:49] because I feel that it would be uh I'm sorry let me start over I asked that this would be brought back uh because I felt that it would be good for uh the city employees and those that would be able to participate in this holiday I feel that uh the city our our workers can never be appreciated enough and this is just a small investment that we're making in them to let them know that we appreciate what they do and um that's why as supps to be brought back and that's why I'd like to make a motion that it be approved I'll second that okay um just a second for me the only the the issue that I had with it last time and I and I appreciate the your addition and and and your desire and I also uh am a proponent of doing good things for the employees and recognizing that we have good employees um at the same time I was I was trying to to spend spend some energy against what our vacation policies are what our sick leave policies are what they are at the county um and how many days off they get in a year how many days off we get in a year trying to make sure that we weren't comparing apples and oranges in other words it was brought up basically with the idea that the Count's getting something and we'd like to have that too and so I I spent a little bit of time on that and and that is the perspective that I want to bring to it it's not a matter of of um uh not wanting to support employees but it is a matter of saying there's a way for them to have that day off and it's just using uh the the vacation days uh that they get and they have a a very nice vacation policy and those kinds of things and and I can understand that and had given that some consideration as well and just chose not to take that Avenue as it relates to this time but uh you guys have made a motion in a second and so I need to see if there's any further debate and then call for this now now this is to make it a holiday as such paid holiday correct

[2:30:54] not just closing but paid holiday I understanding that yes that is correct okay all right okay and so uh meaning that they'll be paid holiday rates during that time off and those things okay I have a motion in a second no further uh information from Council any public input on this item okay call for this vote all those in favor please say I I I I I got 1 two three four those opposed nay nay so you have a 4 to2 vote okay um okay and I think I can move us forward then sorry you guys I'm I'm having to your computer my computer was going a minute ago well thanks I got to see it to play with it there we go uh um do we have an item for executive session today yes we do yes we do okay looks like we need to go into executive session and then come back and finish up followup and administrative issues uh because there is something for the agenda for executive session so it's 11:58 I'll move us into executive session at this time to order it's 12:51 the items that we talked about up uh in executive session did not uh did not require um it's further action in Open Session yet so I'll move us to item number 22 can I get a motion to accept these uh designated board nominations okay I have a motion and a second to put these folks on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is there any discussion call for the vote all those in favor please say I I I any opposed okay the next thing is the consideration of approving appointments to the mental health mental retardation services for the cono Valley Board of Trustees uh recommended by the liaison representative committee and I'm motion

[2:32:58] to approve second okay do we have further question or discussion on this item okay call for the vote all those in favor please say I I any opposed okay now we have announcements and consideration of future agenda items mayor I think I've informed uh you that I won't be at the next council meeting I'll be I have a followup appointment with my surgeon in December 20th um 18th December 18th I won't be at the 18th meeting thank you December the 18th meeting we know that we will have one council member not here is there any other U announcements along those lines or anything okay then uh future agenda items Sir Mr Morrison I still want an audit of the water department top to bottom side to side and I asked for it last meeting and would like to get it on uh this morning I pulled up 10 15 more I think it was 15 more people that had signed a petition asking for it I think it's up to about 165 I think it's time to answer the okay I have a I'm I get a lot of those also but U the question I had was um it seemed like there was some meeting trying to come together there's a meeting Thursday to have a forum but still would like to get it on the agenda for discussion okay and another hang on and Clarity also Mr are you talking about from like an outside accounting firm yes yes I am talking about a complete total audit the entire water yes outside firm that's all I'm asking here's here's my I just want to involve lacia our our City attorney in this because I've been emailing her and I've been asking her have we already ready audited them and I'm and i' there's an exchange I'm getting answers from her we may have already audit audited the water department I'm just I'm just it has to happen every year already it's it's a compulsory requirement and so if we ask

[2:35:04] for this it it may be redundant and so I just want to bring that to the council's attention can we have that audit presented to council so that Mr Morrison will have what he's asking for so that the citizens will receive what they're asking for already I said we have the discussion different levels of audit right okay and I want the discussion on the agenda discussion okay there you go question' be wonderful Mr silvas along the same lines are we all getting the same emails I mean I've got I've got over a 100 so I assume we're all I imagine that we are I mean it's hard because you don't want to respond because of open meetings issues right so that's ex I imagine we're all being okay just want to make sure that yeah I responded at first but now I'm getting so many I don't so okay other items for the agenda probably got a few today like to make a motion to adjourn second okay call for the vote all those in favor please say I I any opposed post

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=RzGdshm5pho