San Angelo City Council 4-1-14

[0:00:00] down here I didn't have time it is 9:01 I think it's time to call this meeting daughter sooner we get started the sooner we get through let's start this off this morning with a prayer and I'll ask Frank berold which is the preacher at the chadburn North Church of Christ come forward and lead us stand as you're able please good morning Frank your Holy Father in heaven we humble ourselves in your presence father we give you praise and honor and Glory father for the blessings of this day for each and every day that you bless us with and we pray father that we use all of the time that you give us in a in a wise way father that we might be good stewards of each and every blessing that we have father at this time I ask a very special prayer in behalf of this meeting and our city council members father that you will bless them with the wisdom and the knowledge that they need in order to lead this city into the future father we thank you for each and every one of them and their families as they struggle through the difficulties of making Sometimes some very difficult decisions and we pray father that we as a community will unite behind them and father that we will support them and in all that they do father we thank you for each and every one of those present here this morning thank you Father for their interest in the Affairs of this community and we pray father that each and every one of us would be a part part of the solution rather than the problem father we thank you for this great country that we live in we thank you Father for the freedoms that we enjoy and we pray father that you will be with those who are standing In Harm's Way in defense of that freedom we pray father that you will bring them safely home be with their families while they are away and bless them and help them father as as they continue to support them and may we support uh those who are behind them Father we pray especially for each and every leader of this community but we pray father all the way up to our

[0:02:03] federal government father that you will bless everyone who leads in a way that they might be able to do so in a way that pleases you father at this time we ask of a very special prayer in behalf of our country as we are in desperate need of rain we pray father that we will unite as we uh pray to you and ask that you fill our lakes and our streams and our underground water supplies but we pray father that in all things that we will always look to you for the uh future and father that we will have our faith in you father we thank you for all of our young people we thank you Father for the dedication that they have committed to become F uh Future Leaders and we pray father that you will bless them as they grow up and as they prepare to uh take control of the things that take place in our uh local government and um in our country father we thank you for all the many blessings that you give us in this life and we pray father that we will show our gratitude to you in all that we say and all that we do and it's in the name of Jesus Christ Our King that we humbly beg this prayer amen amen thank you and now to lead the pledge for us I have Miss Anna Marie mat and Miss Sarah mat Anna Marie is a sixth grader and Sarah is a fifth grader at Angelo Catholics please come forward ladies and help me with the pledge Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all Al God one and indivisible good job [Applause] all right we have a proclamation that's

[0:04:07] covers about half of our crowd this morning it's the I chose ASU and we've got we've got students here from Grape Creek and TLC and I see a bobcat and I see some Chiefs and I see wall so we've got a good group of you here this morning let me read this Proclamation then we'll bring you up whereas Angelo State University and the community of SEL Ang are partnering together in celebration of future students current students faculty staff and alumni who have chosen to participate in the offices of higher education at Angelo State University and whereas Angelo State University with an enrollment of 6536 undergraduate and graduate students is an integral part of the city of St Angelo and a citadel of higher earning in West Texas and it employs 350 facil faculty members 500 staff members and 700 student workers who are a vital part of this community and the university has graduated for 4,221 students since its Inception in 1965 in Angelo State University educational opportunities have grown to include one doctoral degree in physical therapy 24 master's degrees 40 undergraduate degree programs and over 100 majors and concentrations and Angelo State is celebrating in this year 85 its 85th graduating class and the month of April 214 will be chosen as I choose will be celebrated as I choose Angelo State month at Angelo State University by Future students current students faculty staff and alumni through campus events social media and local media outlets now therefore I Dwayne Marson the mayor of the city of St Angelo on behalf of the city council do hereby Proclaim April 214 as I chose Angelo State month and Brian you need to come up here too and let's see Sandra Adam the director of admission sharp you were just checking us it's sh I got pretty close to started with an ed didn't Charla Adams and I think you have a speech to make okay you have the floor mayor Morrison and members of the

[0:06:11] city council thank you we are honored and humbled to be here today we are celebrating Angelo State University and to do that we want to acknowledge some of the people who have already chosen Angelo State University along with some of our future students who will join us in the fall this year accepting the proclamation on behalf of Angela State University is Dr Brian May president of the University I also have an attendance if you'll come to the front as a call your name Dr Javier Flores vice president of enrollment management Dr Nancy Allen interim Provost and vice president for academic Affairs Mr Jeff seik executive director of enrollment management and Miss Jamie Aken executive director of development and alumni relationships so this group is accepting the proclamation on behalf of Angelo State University in addition to that we have some other individuals that we would like to kind of pass the torch to our new students and I'd like for them to come up as well as I call their names Kevin pepper development officer Kelsey samsel academic adviser for the College of Business Jessica Behringer admissions counselor Preston Wimberly student body president Alex Bryant he's a current student and involved in so many activities on campus his resume is too long to list today Kim Adams director of Alumni Association and these who have already chosen Angelo State uh would like to recognize and pass the torch by sharing the this beautiful neon safety orange I chose Angelo State t-shirt to our future students that we'd like to celebrate as well today Joshua Stevenson from Central High School if you'll just come up to

[0:08:14] the front and you'll greet Alyssa Ramirez Cornerstone High School Kevin Odell Grape Creek High School Miranda chavaria lak View High School Stephanie saringer tlca high school and Amanda Reese wall high school we are so excited to en encourage these students and to um welcome them into the fold into the Angelo State family in addition to these guys if y'all would just bear with me for a moment if you are an Angelo State Alumni I would love for you to stand if you're able if not you can raise your ram horns thank you so much for this opportunity we're going to take a picture now oh okay what do you want is Brian back here closely together watch the name tag it's all right we get knocked all time thank you [Applause] [Laughter] I'd be in serious trouble because that all right let's move on to our next

[0:10:20] Proclamation this will be accepted by Senator vial the city of St Angelo Health Service director and this is in regards to National Public Health Week the week of April 7 through 13 214 is national public health week and is the theme of Public Health start here and public health has played an important role in laying the foundation for good health and improved longevity by working to immunize people against disease identifying and controlling environmental health hazards and infectious disease preparing for large scale emergencies improving the health of mothers and childr and promoting Health behaviors in areas such as nutrition and the S Angelo Tom Green County Health Department and family support service Department have educated the public policy makers and public health professionals about issues important to improving the public health and foodborn contaminants cause an average of 5,000 deaths 325,000 hospitalizations 76 million illnesses and CA billions of dollars annual annually the five most common foodborn pathogens cost the US economy more than $44 billion each year in medical cost and lost productivity Wick WIC nutrition program provides nutrient rich foods client referrals and health education proven to decrease the percentage of premature low birth weight infants health care cost during the first year of life for low birth weight premature infant averages 49 $49,000 whereas a full-term infant with no complications average $451 Wick proudly celebrates his 40th anniversary in the United States this year and whereas strong public health systems are critical for sustaining and improving Community Health uh therefore Dwayne Morrison mayor of the city of St Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council du hereby Proclaim April 7 through 13 2014 as National Public Health Week Sandra come up and make your introductions please ma'am good morning thank you mayor council and obviously this is not about me um so I've got um a group of uh individuals that actually are the heart

[0:12:24] of Public Health here in in our organization Cal Hurley who is one of our sanitarians Dr stepen cyford Who is our health authority and our guidance our guide come on in um Bob Solace family neighborhood Support Services who oversees Wick and um Code Compliance and Maria gilad who is our nursing director James Flores our code compliance officer manager Kevin little one of our other sanitarians Joe collie is also one of our sanitarians as Julie Verana our animal services manager and Gloria hail our Wick manager thank you so much for this recognition um during this week um again this is just some of the folks that are continually every single day trying to keep this community safe from either foodborn illness or any kind of disease outbreaks through contact tracing communicable disease U interventions and so forth um we couldn't do it without them we can't do it without you guys we ALS we must share this Proclamation with our Community Partners out there who help us also um with our communicable disease programs and so we have to share that with them as well um the face of Public Health as we know it has changed yet um our fundamental core um our fundamental core reasons for being are to prevent the spread of disease and that is what we are doing through our various um things that we do today and we do like we would like to thank Dr cyer Who who is our guide for our nursing division as our health authority and I would also like to thank Rick Wise who serves as our leader um for all of us in in our divisions um under public health and I'm going to to also let Bob

[0:14:31] I guess Bob sales say a few words oh thank you um I'd like to Echo the words of the Proclamation and the comments that Sandra made um I want to thank the staff uh for the outstanding job and the great Services they provide to the citizens and the community at wi community community at large and you know they do a very tough job but they do it very well so thank you very much and really appreciate it anybody else want to say anything Dr make speech this your opportunity well uh yeah uh thanks for the recognition you know I think a lot of people don't realize what public health uh folks do a lot of times because they're not always out front um but you know I guess they're like your parents a little bit in the sense they're always there kind of standing behind when you need them uh if there's a measles outbreak or TV outbreak or STD stuff or any bowl out break uh then then you get to see all these people and uh thankfully we don't have all of those but all of those are you know health problems that people face around the world and and so public health does play a big part I man we probably all recognize that you know a dollar spent in preventions worth a $100 or more you know trying to treat a lot of these illnesses and so all all the things that all these people do whether it's food born illnesses or or sexually transmitted diseases and and and tracking all those and and making sure that they don't become large outbreaks you know keeping it uh you know keeping folks in in the community healthy um so that they you know can work and and do the jobs we need them to all that stuff all the time and so um again everybody here does a great job uh you know it's all kind of a local effort and it's nice to know that these are people that you you know you see around the community and they're not just sort

[0:16:34] of bureaucrats from Washington that come in and try to tell you how to do things these are people that actually you know work day and day out um not always the most exciting jobs but some of the most needed so just a big thank you to all them thank you all for for recognizing need to take a picture then what do you want Brian back here yes sir let's move back here and take picture good thank you very [Applause] the next Proclamation and I need Steve M up here for this one this is going to be National safe digging month April 214 it says whereas each year the nation's underground utility infrastructure is jeopardized by unintentional damage by those who fail to call 811 have to have under ground lines located prior to digging undesired consequences such as service Interruption damage to the environment and personal injury and even death or the potential results and the Common Ground allowance and its 15 1500 members promote the national call before you dig number 811 in an effort to reduce these damages designated by the FCC in 205 811 provides potential excavators and homeowners a simple number to reach their local One Call Center to request utility line locations at the intended de site and through education of safe digging practices excavators and homeowners can save time and money keeping our nation safe by connecting and making a simple call 2811

[0:18:37] in advance of any digging project waiting the required amount of time respecting The Marked Lines by maintaining visual definition throughout the course of the escavation and finally digging with care around the marks and all parties agree that safe digging is a shared responsibility to know what is below call 811 Before You Dig now therefore our Dwayne Morrison May of the city of St Angelo on behalf of the city council do hereby declare or Proclaim April 214 as National safe digging month brother M you the microphone is yours sir on behalf of the uh damage prevention Council I want to thank you for this Proclamation I also have with me today Mr Eric Bowers who is with Premier utility the services who is also a member of the damage prevention Council so he's here to accept this certificate with me a lot of people think that uh calling 811 Before You Dig just applies to contractors it does not it applies to all of us uh it can be a very shocking result if you take a TST and drive it in the ground you happen to hit a an electric utility or a gas line we don't want that so if you're going to do any digging even in your own backyard you need to call 811 find out where those water lines are where those utility lines are and where those gas lines are dig safely uh we need to be doing that all the way from our own backyards and front yards all the way up to uh major projects so again I thank you for this uh Proclamation on behalf of the damage prevention Council shell come up here as well please Shel is with atmost guests and uh she's also a very important part of this so I want to you up here as well ma'am thank you you can hold the thank you very

[0:20:51] [Applause] much okay this next one is is going to be it will it's the mayor's day of recognition I need Dolores schwarner uh Wendy Medina uh Dolores Schartner is the director of the West Texas RSVP program retired senior citizens I have the Wendy Medina which is the Foster grandparent program and Nolan me who is a senior companion program if y'all would come forward and I'll read this it says whereas service to others is a Hallmark of the American character and Central to how we meet our challenges and the nation's Mayors are increasingly turning to National service volun service and volunteer him as a costeffective strategy to meet City needs and S Angelo has all three national service senior course programs West Texas RSVP Foster grandparents program and the senior companion program and these programs tap the rich experiences skills and talents of older adult volunteers to meet Community challenges having an impact on individuals nonprofits and faith-based and other community organizations and RSVP volunteers provide a full range of service from Summer meals to children to home delivery meals and medical transportation for the frail elderly Foster grandparents volunteer Serv as Role Models mentors and Friends tutoring and guiding children at a critical time in their lives and Senior companion volunteers help frail elderly citizens remain in their home longer by providing much needed support and Senior cores programs locally support projects in six priority areas healthy Futures disaster services and E economic opportunities education environmental stewardship and Veterans and military families and the corporation for national and Community Services share a priority with Mayors Nationwide to engage citizens improve lives and strengthen communities and is joining with Mayors across this country to support the mayor's day of recognition for national service on April 1 to14 therefore I Dwayne Morrison mayor of the city of St Angelo on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim the 1st of April 2014 as national service recognition day Dolores as the mayor mentioned this is

[0:22:57] the second annual mayor's recognition day across the United States and in Texas alone over a thousand Mayors have signed on including mayor Morrison and we're pleased about that but these programs senior Corps is very unique uh one that we have all three in San Angelo because we're one of the smallest cities that have has all three programs but the fact that these programs benefit uh three populations actually they benefit the seniors because it keeps them engaged and they have their talent to give back it keeps them engaged in the community and keeps them active and um healthy it benefit the clients that these volunteers serve and it helps the nonprofits meet their uh budget because they help the nonprofits across the community so thank you mayor and city council for proclaiming this mayor's day across St Angelo and this koncho Valley thank you thank youis get a picture this anybody else on state no thank you all [Applause] all right we now have a very special Proclamation uh Maryann come forward please ma'am this is the city of s Angelo recreation department and we are recognizing the ladyc cats this is San Angelo eight and under girls replacing second in the Texas amateur athletic F Federation Regional Basketball Tournament held March 1- 2 2014 in St Angelo Texas and we got a whole bunch of basketball players up here Maryanne take over and we need to recognize these girls Okay first let me say not only did they win second in Regional they won third in state so they traveled to Long View Texas played really hard and played teams from all over the state and captured third place so they represented San Angelo really well and they may not look it but they're a tough group of girls um their coach John Henry Bettis I'll call him up here to introduce the

[0:24:58] girls or to have them introduce themselves um Recreation could not survive without the help of volunteer coaches like John Henry um all of our coaches participate and volunteer in not only basketball flag football uh softball all across the board and John Henry is one of those that really uh volunteers with everything that Recreation does he's a true supporter of us and and we really appreciate him so John Henry than thank you'all very much uh my name is John hry Pettis and I've been coaching uh with the city for about the last 10 years um so it it's a good privilege this has been a a great group of girls that I've coached this year and um we've been playing for the last three years so to get to this point is very very exciting so I'll go ahead and introduce the team players and we'll go from there first I have Juliana Pettis then I have Hadley Hallmark Ella Burns then I have um Jay samaripa Alyssa Rodriguez Riley Clemens the Leia Rodriguez Romo Romo sorry Romo Carissa Castile and Alyssa Baron thank you'all very much Mr Mayor you really ought to carry with you your gold medal you know a gold metal from the the Water Valley GD any parent that wants to come forward Mr Mayor everybody make sure they there a parent that wants to come forward to take a picture all

[0:27:04] right if there's any parents who want to come forward and take a picture while they're lined up here this is your opportunity proud pars one more thank you all thank you and I thank is just to add I think that this parental involvement like this in these children's lives is probably the reason these kids are so very successful so is that all no one more Skywarn recipient need you up here again Steve Rodney Anne flipping Chris Nation Dr Steve Lions if y'all are here please come forward I think we're going to be recognized Steve when I was uh selected for the position of Emergency Management coordinator for St Angelo and Tom Green County my primary goal was to make St Angelo and Tom Green County a disaster resilient Community the critical part of that especially this time of the year as we go into storm season and I know it's kind of hard to believe we're going to have any storms but the possibility is there when we have those severe storms there is something that needs to

[0:29:09] go into effect and it's what I call the line of life that's the communication that is so so critical between those storm spotters that are out there in the field the weather service and then the public the weather services are number one uh Avenue to get the information out to the public the second and just as critical is the news media part of the training that we put on on February the 20th was a Skywarn class it initially began and has always been for ham radio operators who are those storm spotters however the information that is given in that class is very important to everybody it's good information that even your your own personal family needs to have because it gives you a heads up on what is heading your way we tried to pull together as many of our elected officials our media Representatives as well as the the spotters and representatives from uh the weather service and we did so successfully and so it is my pleasure today to be able to present the certificate some participation to some of the people who were there some very critical people first of all mayor Morrison thank you sir thank you councilman clamy thank you of course we know mayor Morrison and uh uh councilman flaming are but Chris nation is the uh weather the weatherman for KY Fox so if we don't get the weather we want he's one of them we can

[0:31:15] blame so between between him and and uh uh our our folks out of kst they're the ones we can blame but I I I do want to thank all of them for being here today I do want you to understand that that these people are very very critical in keeping each and every one of us safe out there as these storms approach and I can't tell you and I can't tell them how much I appreciate their involvement thank [Applause] you thank I think like it's time for a break man let's move on to the next part of our our our meeting this morning which is public comment uh the public the council will take 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 the council May request an item to be placed on a future agenda or for a consent agenda item to move to the regular agenda for public comment on public hearing items public input will be received on each item immediately following the council discussion and prior to any action on the item each member of the public should make the remarks from the podium by stating their name remarks by each citizen will be limited to 3 to 5 minutes unless waved by a council member for all speaking on that matter no individual will be allowed to speak more than once on any one subject until every citizen wishing to comment has done so and I'm going to open it up to the public first if there are anyone if there is anyone in our audience this

[0:33:18] morning that wishes wishes to address the council uh Pro or con this is your time so line up at the podium St your names and you've got three or five to make your comment just want to mention that I noticed on the news report this morning it was mentioned that the dog park will be discussed at the city council meeting today it is not on the agenda the dog park is not on the agenda for today there is a public meeting this evening in this room at 5:30 and the public is invited we'll talk about the process to get the dog park and we'll talk about fundraising that's all thank you Carl anyone else care to approach hello Paul hello you know the drill Paul Alexander uh what do we call it the immediate past councilman for smd1 uh I'm here today because this is the only time I can really talk to all of you at the same time otherwise we get into uh quorums and it's illegal so we can't do that so I have to come here to talk to you all at the same time I want to say that uh Dwayne you you and the city manager wrote a very good letter to the water Advisory board members asking us to put our brains together we're in a crisis we need to meet we need to be thinking it's it's that's in a nutshell what this says is very well written uh that was uh February 28th and today is April 1 2 April fools first first April fools okay so I'm not okay so I'm just getting it all confused but it is April 1st and it's been a long that's a long time when we're in a Water Crisis to be laad desial is that the word I want to use just saying here to all of you that your board members are not meeting they haven't met since I've been on that board uh October I haven't in fact you know when I was a city councilman it took me two years to realize there was a water Advisory Board Kendall harshfield mayor new and I met every week for a while there we met constantly learning about water and then I realized there's a board that's supposed to know this and be sending us information it never happened so one of the things I said to myself is when I when I'm off this Council I'm going to go to that board

[0:35:20] and get it going especially for Water Crisis which we are I don't think they want to meet I'm not sure what's going on but but your guys are not meeting and talking what could we talk about maybe they don't know what we could talk about I'll give you a couple examples I believe that we should have a CIP for water so the water uh CIP would be a list of projects that are possible here is the cost here's how much water we save and we believe that this is the proper way to attack this list okay so you know from experts in water what what's going on and which project is next which one should you be looking at which one should we be talking about another idea here's one I have uh season tickets to Texas A&M they charge a lot of money they charge a lot of money because they're building a new half billion dollar stadium and they can't afford to do it unless they get our money so they charge us what if we created projects for example it cost $4 million to put a pipe under the dam at the uh South Pole of twin butes to run that water straight into nasworthy that water would be in nasworthy right now nasworthy wouldn't be down it would be pretty level and and a little rain and a little bit of runoff into the south pool and we get that water straight into nasor we could have our boat races but that's not where we are we we're watching our Lake go down we got to pump it over and we're going to spend $400,000 doing that trying to get that water over that's that's kind of expensive it's difficult it will always be difficult until we solve this problem so for $4 million we can do this how about we sell something like a water right or water exemption rights to whereby you buy the exemption for I'm just going to say $100 per thousand gallons per month and you get an exemption on your bill because you've already bought the right but when it comes drought time and drought level three hits you still get it you still can water your trees th000 gallons or maybe I bought 5,000 gallons of an exemption because I really need the water but here's the deal if that pipe is under the dam they're saving us

[0:37:24] enormous amounts of water per year and when and they're going to lay us going into drought level three they deserve to have that water at a critical time like that and then what they can do with that water ride is sell it on the open market when we have plenty of water they can sell it for cheap when the water goes down they sell it for more that's their deal but we can fund our project and we can fund our project we can save water it may be a terrible idea but if we don't meet we don't talk about it and we don't Implement these ideas and that's where we are right now and I'm frustrated about it because we are in a Water Crisis I have a mound of ideas in my head cuz I studied this for three now four years let's meet so if your members don't want to meet find new members get me Steve uh Lions give me and he has a a water hydrologist on his staff at the National Weather Service let's get some people in there we'll talk that's it you got a question I'd like to have a list of who has gone to the last meetings I want to I want to see who's not going to the meeting most of them will attend they don't call the meetings they don't the last meeting they had was about the HIC Roger expanding the oil wells I mean the water wells so we have enough capacity to serve our city when we run out of water we only had 71% of the needed water so I kept jumping up and down say hey mayor new this is Mayor new you've got to look at this and six months later he finally said you're right I convinced him and he went to the water board and said hey are we right on this they met said yep they sent it to the city council we approved it the paper says water board suggest blah blah blah but you know this is this is what's going on behind the scenes those guys didn't come up with that idea we did the council did they've got to do a better job that got to me we're in a crisis we don't we shouldn't be here we should be planning ahead at all times especially right now you know God puts us into these situations so he strengthens us yeah it's not to me it's not about praying for water it's praying for strength to get through these things and then we move forward as a city and we fortify our future because we won't always be in a drought and he's moving us and we're

[0:39:27] not really responding very well here and we deserve almost to be in a drought until we respond and get ourselves situated and we're notk other questions thank youall very much on that same subject we're about to go into change our watering restrictions we we're going to go to watering twice every two weeks I think that's the dumbest thing we could ever do right now we're allowing once every two weeks and we should leave it at once every two weeks we are in a crisis and people are out there are not realizing that we're in a crisis it you've got to make it a little bit hard on people so they realize we don't have the water and I myself you know I'm I'm only going to be watering I water like once every 30 days now I'm about to scrape my whole front yard and just rock it all out and not deal with the grass anymore but we need to as a council I think we need to change that where not allow watering once every or twice every two weeks here I think that's in the next month we need we need to discuss that we need to we need to change that back and stay at the water level that we're at right now don't don't give people the hope that there is something especially with the amount of rain we've gotten this year I really think that the water development Board needs to meet Daniel would you agree with me sir I agree absolutely uh so Daniel you and I will take this upon oursel to to get the water development board to meet as soon as possible fair is that fairly stated we'll do man' okay all right anyone else yes sir state your name you've got three to five please sir I'm Howard Schwarz uh I'm representing Sunlake Estates and star US Mobile Home Park um the agenda doesn't seem to address the the issue so I I I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate time or after the discussion I think we probably need to wait until we get to the agenda items on RV parer because this public comment is for things that are not on the agenda okay so if I could sir please I hold it till the appropriate time and then you will be allowed to speak Mr Schwartz thank you thank you sir anyone else good morning Marshall gray my son Mark

[0:41:38] uh I don't believe this is about the ordinance I'm seeking permission to obtain a permit and if I may we all right here this my guy um we uh made an application last week my contractor did I need to run power if you look on this map you'll see a existing 400 amp load sitter and that provides power to numerous sites what I'm trying to get a permit for is if you'll see the new 50 amp service so I can install these uh Park Model RVs that are already at my Campa this the first one that he had is ADA Compliant on the second and third page you'll see a a brief description of them and a floor plan so and this is the other unit it's uh not 88 but uh the the next picture will be the the panel that I need to install it's you bury it in the ground it has everything will be if I can get a permit permitted inspected the city code we have been doing it for 19 years this is a 50320 this is the load Center that's already existing IT Supplies power to the SES in the background and to some that are on this side of it and these are the two this is one site first of February I got and that's the second S I got a permit to put in the sewer system and N9 days later I couldn't get the permit to put in the electrical so that's what I'm here for Rodney okay one thing the reason why the city staff told him he couldn't get the permit is because of the moratorium I asked for the moratorium on this thing and I never said the moratorium was going to affect any existing Parks throughout this whole city the moratorium was put in place to stop any future development of new RV or trailer

[0:43:41] parks and so I'm I'm saying right now they're they're uh describing or they're interpreting the moratorium wrong we should allow him to go through with this that's the reason why they gave you that you couldn't do this right Marshall and so I I think today we should be able to solve this or as fast as possible because this is costing him money when the trailers are sitting there and he's not being able to rent them out they said it would be June before I could get a let let me just interrupt please I appreciate the comments but we're right on the edge yeah we're right on the edge we'll take your public comment but we can't you know we can't discuss this Marshall that's correct this is just public comment that's correct okay thank we can't discuss it on public comment we can I didn't know that's why and I I was trying to let things work when do I discuss it well we can discuss it we can discuss it with our permit department you've made it known your problem the reasons have been made you have brought you're defining this wrong you're defining this wrong the moratorium I ask for the moratorium I'm the one that asked for it let's let let's let City staff take care of this you've defined the problem City staff knows that there is a problem and I believe that you've got a right to go ahead and finish what you permitted before the moratorium uh but this is not proper time Mark see me see me during the break okay thank you sir do I have anyone else that cage to speak all right if there is no further public comment then I'm going to go to the council is there anyone from the council that has any comments to make or any proclamations or statements or anything to say mayor I do have something Johnny uh for the sake of transparency I did have a constituent in my uh contact me last week and uh was concerned about you know he's uh very much appreciative of what we've done along the river you know the revitalization the bank stabilization and the walking trails and all but with with uh with upgrades like that come more foot traffic and with more human beings out there come animals and dogs

[0:45:44] so to speak and and with dogs comes you know what you know so there there's more dog poop out there and and I shared this with Carl Rick I shared it with Carl and said that maybe we need some more poop scooping stations for lack of a better word and so I I think that that problem is starting to increase and I wanted to let the public know and and really the idea was to maybe educate the public on hey um you know this is a problem that's going to uh to to grow so another comment made during that conversation was these and and like I said I shared it with Carl was these trash cans these half barrel trash cans that we cut in half you know that they really look kind of tacky and we need to you know Supply something nice out there to go along with all the the Aesthetics that's being done out there so just wanted to share that so he would know that I brought it to the Forefront and uh wanted to let everyone know let it be known your city council is on poop scoop Patrol here so we've got this covered what what day are you taking Dwayne we had a letter this week and it was published in the standard times from valy water company and I think that as a city we need to make our position clear because this letter put us in a bad light uh there are reasons that we have not chosen to go with valver water company and for diplomacy I'm going to ask Mr viin way to to explain this instead of me because thank you mayor of course we are exploring our long-term water options and the valber water company of course we do have the um the west Texas water partnership which includes the cities of ab middle in St Angelo we have Ved out different projects and we are moving forward with exploring exactly what we need to do to address our long-term water supply uh the valber Water company was one of those options that was uh is no longer being considered we actually have two other options at this point that we feel are much more viable and much more beneficial for the city so

[0:47:48] again those of you who read that in the newspaper uh I don't want you to feel that the city is not doing anything as far as a long-term water supply for the city we are moving forward again that is just one of the options that at this point is not being explored but we are exploring to others we feel are very viable well said anyone else Care Charlotte I just for my constituents and those of you who called me Saturday and Sunday with reference to the newspaper article I was not aware of the letter that the mayor received or the city manager received uh had no input about the letter and was not involved in any decisions that apparently have been made so I just want to make that clear to my constituents that I was not aware of the letter do we have further comment Council anything else need to be said before we move on to the consent agenda if not then we will go to the next part of our meeting which is the consent agenda there are seven items on the consent agenda if is there anyone either in the public or on Council that wishes to have a consent agenda item moved to the regular agenda no council all right with it as it stands public all right with it as it stands then I'll ask for a motion move to approve the consent agenda as is second I do have a motion I do have a second we've already called for public comment all those in favor please say I I oppose Nay put a 70 on that one we're now to the regular 6 6 I'm sorry Marty's not here Marty Marty had uh Marty's in Houston today and was unable to be here so put 601 regular agenda public hearing and comment first public hearing and consideration of introducing an ordinance amending chapter 12 exhibit a zoning ordinance of the code of ordinances city of St Angelo z406 MK Allen Enterprises Incorporated an ordinance amending chapter 12 exhibit a of the code of ordinance city of St Angelo which set exhibit a of chapter 12 adopts with zoning regulations use

[0:49:50] districts and a zoning map in accordance with a comprehensive plan by changing these changing the zoning and classification of the following property to with an unaddressed 1.99 acre track located approximately 250 ft Southwest Southeast 250 ft Southeast from the intersection of Foster Road in the West Loop 306 Frontage Road this property specifically occupies 1.99 Acres out of a 37.013202 6 and the harn bird survey 175 abstract 350 in southern s Angelo changing the zoning classification from Ranch and Estates r& to General commercial CG District providing for severability and providing a penalty uh service directors development services director Patrick Howard but before we start it is 9:52 do y'all want to take a few minutes break before we get into this this could take a while let's go let's take a break 9:52 we're going to take about a 10 or 15 minute break and then you're on Patrick it's already been read not a problem it's 10:13 is everybody ready to start up everybody left wing right RNG y'all ready to go okay this meeting is back on uh Patrick Howard it is your time sir good morning mayor members of city council item number eight is a zoning request in located in southeast St Angelo uh the applicant MK Allen Enterprises is requesting to rezone his property from Ranch and Estates to uh General commercial this request is consistent with uh the vision plan map and both staff and Planning Commission do recommend approval of such request I do have uh additional slides but at this time I'll provide opportunity for both uh public and city council comment can we go ahead and go through the slides and kind of show the pro

[0:51:51] because some of the especially the public is not going to understand how this lot is where it's at can do that thank you okay and I'm sorry I was in a I was in my happy place when he asked that I didn't he fine perfectly fine okay the subject property like I said is located in uh Southeast St Angelo this map probably is not the greatest but it it's located within the South um so the subject property if you could see the area in the north is uh the current zoning current L use um uh there is that natural gas line that you see that's sort of by replicates to the two uh sub uh two subject properties um and then the area just immediately south of the natural gas line is is vacant and not developed so this is just an aerial that shows the the same area this shows the actual uh zoning uh there's General commercial to the north of the subject property the subject property in the center of the map is is hashed Mark and is currently zone right man States and again the applicant is requesting to rezone that portion to Neighborhood commercial we believe that again the vision map uh recommends such for that subject property uh it's it would be consistent with the adjoining property and we believe that the the power line that uh you see um natural gas line will provide a nice buffer and transition between the neighborhood or General commercial and the existing residential just to the south of the subject property so just for clarification that the hash mark is the only area we're talking about that's correct that's the subject property okay Charlotte do you have a question yes I do um if uh it's I've received numerous calls from the residents and stuff out there so I have been out and and driven it and and looked at it and you go back

[0:53:55] to your map uh General commercial and what comes up against it the neighborhood you know being Ranch and Estates now currently the if you look at the bottom of the screen which is that vacant area is toward the residents homes and stuff that are on that first street which is River Valley Lane correct um if you change that to General commercial aren't you taking away a portion of the buffer that ranch and estate protects those homes those Investments where they have invested and they have some animals Etc and so forth aren't you removing a portion of that buffer that um it may be vacant now but that whole area was vacant back there 30 years ago and it's developing out so I just want to hear you address that sure I I I wasn't here as the time of the vision plan map uh exercise I know there's a lot of community input given as it relates to what the the recommendations going forward were for the land I think that the belief is that the natural gas line did provide an adequate transition between both the residential and Commercial and quite frankly the The General commercial is the least intensive commercial use so the the it does provide for neighborhood type serving commercial uses so we're not talking about heavy industrial or those that would cause a lot of traffic that would be obtrusive to the neighborhood so again given the recommendations of the plan of the map and the plan uh staff was concurred with that and also did Planning Commission but again they there is a natural gas line that will not be developed and could likely provide that needy transition between the residential and the commercial well the natural gas line is is buried I mean it's something you know that it's there but visually it's not like something that blocks the view of the folks you know that are there on

[0:55:59] River Valley Lane you know you've got the transmission line to the gas line is buried so to me that's it's I don't accept it that's a good point my point was I guess as it relates to development there is development won't be encroaching in abing immediately abing the the residential but you're correct there is no visual barrier per say that separates the potential of the commercial if in fact it were to be resed from the residential Patrick how how wide is that easement through there the the portion that's C that's cleared for the the natural gas line that's a good question I think it's about 20 ft it's about 20 ft yeah it's about 25 is it 50 ft okay 50 ft so the entire correct 50 ft yes okay Rodney go ahead sir when we do zoning changes like this when they did the uh the stripes over there on in front of Bentwood and we made them put up a big fence between the residential that was right behind the parking lot there and the and the property we made the new business put that up is that in the zoning can we make them do a high 8ot fence there going all the way across that property it can be subject to conditions if in fact you elect to do such that's what I was told may I ask how many how many acres is in this CG right now and how many acres is in this grid this part that we're trying to make or they're trying to make CG looks to me like it's you know about 10% of the area and if 90% of it is already CG and we're just trying to just do 15 or 20% right on the edge correct so I just wondered if there was how many acres are we talking about changing 1.9 1.9 correct so we're changing 1.9 out of a CG total acreage

[0:58:04] of that's correct well CG runs all the way down the road there so I mean it goes way further toal but in this one lot about that area right there it would probably be 15 acres oh no not that big 10 five 10 10 so we've got a 10 acre spot that's already CG and all we're trying to do is just take that Western Corner which is 1.9 and make it CG that's correct and also there is no one living in that vacant land to the West there's no one there so whatever is put on the CG anyone that buys property will know what they're buying when they buy I mean if there were already a house there or Housing Development it might be a little different but it's vacant land so so if anyone decides they want to build a house or develop that area whatever is there in that commercial area is going to be there so they know what they're getting when they get it so okay that's my question well that's the same would apply to these folks that have built they knew that this was owned Ranch and Estates when they invested and built their homes along here that the same would apply but there's a big buffer between the two and also we we had the same thing with Bryant th aair I mean you've got an area that used to all be residential but since Bryant is put through there there hasn't been any residential development in the Bryant thare for the last 50 years because it's all commercial by virt of the road and that's the same thing I see here with 306 this is a major area a lot of it's already gone commercial this is commercial except for that one little 1.9 acre and the residential is back behind it so I don't know anybody have comment let me add that yes sir and and I shared this with Rodney earlier but I you know this isn't my area I don't represent smd1 I guess it is out here but the footprint of this area and and I hear a Stripes Store is that what's the proposed out there do you know Patrick it it's the applicant hadn't fully confirmed what what the development might be but obviously there are restrictions for General commercial so you're not talking about a very

[1:00:06] intensive kind of use and and and I wanted to share some of the I've I've had about two three phone calls from folks that live in Butler farms and if there was a Stripes They're fine with it the conversations I had I said they're fine with the stripes the only concern is if you added the area and allowed heavy traffic in there you know like 18 wheelers is what was brought to my attention that's the concern the I think the neighborhood is is is the the gung-ho for they they they they'd welcome a Stripes there or some type of comedian store there but it's just what are we going to allow are we going to allow the big heavy trucks in there are they going to be able to spend the night are they go you know Park and and and you you see what I'm saying that that's the only concern that the three folks that I talk to that reached out to me wanted me to share and express to to to this Council or to this uh to to you so uh I just want to throw that in correct and again if it's the inclination to the council they can certainly um provide the requirement for conditions to be placed on the the requisite zoning request so that's certainly an option if in fact that's a concern well I'd rather hear from the the proponent to see what exactly he or she want to do with it and uh make up my mind after that any further Council comment on this before we open it up to the public okay let's open it up to public comment uh let's start with the proponent and then we'll go to the opponents I'm sure there will be members on both sides of that coin so uh proponent first state your name you got three to five and you've already got one question ask of you all right good morning everybody my name is Mike Walters uh I am the operations manager for Mk Allen Enterprises Inc the 1.99 Acres that's in question right here on the north side of that pipeline is a part a wedge of property that cannot be used for RNE like it was uh originally zoned and I

[1:02:11] understand when that was taken into the city that the type of zoning that was done there was a progressional type zoning which is pretty standard but that little piece of that 1.99 Acres fell to the north and uh that 1.99 Acres is a part of a total of 18 a little over 18 Acres on that Frontage along Luke 306 now the only reason that that we're even worried or concerned about it is when Luke 306 was built that corner Frontage Road cut off a large part of our property was taken in by the state so we don't have quite as much Frontage uh we would like to have it reson to square up the property it's just a natural progression to square up the property along that gas line now uh Miss farmer was alluding to the fact that the people on River Valley Lane uh were uh concerned about their barrier well if you go south of that pipeline there's 15 Acres that's r& in that block and then you go to the next you go to the next big transition line power line that power Line's 200t wide on the south side of that power line the people from River Valley Lane came to us and wanted to purchase everything on the south side of that power line that we owned we sold them every acre of it up behind their houses they've kept that as a natural area in trees so I don't see any problem with the fact that if we want to develop down to that pipeline as commercial that that these people are going to be bothered they haven't come to me and said anything about the 1.99 Acres they got what they asked for I was a good neighbor and sold it to them we agreed upon a price and we closed on it so I'm just trying to square up that area make it a natural progression so we can put something in there that will will benefit the area not hurt the area questions questions well again what is the idea to what are you it's a convenience store Mr sils and I don't know that uh at this point uh you hear Stripes so you know you can hear what

[1:04:16] you want to hear but they're not after enough acreage in there to put in a truck plaza uh they only right now are asking for 1.75 Acres if my memory serves me cor correct in the letter of intent uh the reason that this this particular area right here we're interested in number one I'll never can develop it as r& I don't think that'll ever happen and number two if we are not able to get sewer across there to those people Stripes said that they're going to have to have a little bit of extra area for septics and which is common in Butler forms or anything r& out there but because there's no septic in I no sewer in that area so we're just trying to make sure that they've got enough room to do what they want to do and I don't think I mean if they were going after a truck plaza or something like that that they'd be after five or six acres it takes a lot of room to park trucks and they've never told me that they just told me that a convenience store and and we are working together on to see what we can do about bringing sewer across the front of that property and if not then we're going to have to allow enough room for some septic back in there and that's why we're Ries on this and we have taken into consideration the people on River Valley Lane I know several of those people they've become friends of mine they've bought the property behind me those are my neighbors my property is over about 1,200 ft from the entrance of actually Butler Farms so the people on River Valley are my neighbors I know the lady who owns the horse farm I know the people down on the other end so I mean that's that's kind of where I'm at I want to be a good neighbor I just want to be able to do business and conduct conduct business in a manner that needs the way it should be conducted and all I'm asking for here is a small variance on a large piece to square up a piece of property well let me add that if somehow we can State on whatever we decide to do today and I think from the three conversations I had they would be more like I said they welcome the idea those

[1:06:18] folks who want something like that so they don't have to travel all the way to wherever they travel now but if somehow we can stipulate on there that no Truck Plaza comes along with this idea then then I'm okay with it that's that's the only concern that I have and like I said it's not even my area but it sounds you're giving me this body language like maybe that's not the case I can't speak for the person buying this property for me to sit here and say yeah I'm going to say yeah I go ahead and do that I don't think that's fair to the purchaser I'm telling you what I know at this particular point that they're not buying enough area for a truck plaza okay in that letter content but I I can't I can't speak for a you know a potential client I can't put that anchor around him fair enough Charlotte Mr silus I hear what you're saying and that's the same concerns that I I'm hearing you know if you if you go just kind of right right around the corner on uh the Bryant and Ben fckin Road where there is a Stripes right there in that little between Ben fckin and the Bryant and that RV sales place there is a stripes and the trucks that are there that truck stop area is smaller than this piece of land uh the the whole area not just the part the trying so being on Loop 36 and coming from Southwest all the way to where it merges with 87 there is no other place for trucks to pull off service and weight they have to go all the way around and get to the one on Ben fckin so it is the ideal place for a truck area and I see it happening very easy if if it's all changed to the zoning further comments I guess that um when I when I look at this I I agree with Charlotte on this thing I think that they probably are going to put some truck parking in there because I think it is a natural place for it I don't see it as being that big of an area and not much bigger than the one that's over there on the other side that he does the uh this partnership that has its property does

[1:08:21] have the property the south of this and it is zoned r& and it is it's 15 acres is it 15.5 it's it's 15 and your plan for that area is probably to going to be housing it's going to be houses so you're going to put in houses probably a street with two houses on each side of the street kind of the way I see how it would probably fall out so that's going to be even more of a buffer between how much did you sell to the property owners that are further down uh it was by the time we did the final closing couple of weeks ago in the final one piece is a little over 13 acres so 13 acres and a 15 acre you got you know 28 acre buffer zone between that and the commercial property that's am I understanding it right mhm that's correct yeah and then Patrick just said that he thought that we could ask for a commercial uh fence to be put up between I think and I think that's pretty standard for them when they're up buding a neighborhood bwood they did it in Bentwood yeah they did it right up against the patio homes there in Bentwood so then you wouldn't get the visual I think that you were talking about Charlotte and I don't think you could get the visual anyways because you got 28 Acres between you to begin with so you got such a big buffer well and you have two easements there also you have a 50t and a 200 fo yeah you got that nobody that's not even in the acreage there that's yeah that's not even included in the acreage so I just want to make sure that I'm understanding everything very clear and also to make sure that all the the audience is also understanding everything very clear the way I see this if this is an 18 acre lot that's CG and then 1.9 of that 18 acres is r& e if I'm seeing this correctly there's 16 Acres right there that are CG and if they wanted to put a truck stop in all they have to do is just move past that 1.9 and they still got 16 Acres so it's not going to stop a truck stop by us refusing to to change 1.9 Acres out of an 18 acre lot because if they want a truck stop you can sell them out of that other 16 acres and they can put the truck stop in and it's already legal well actually there's correct there's actually there's over 18

[1:10:23] Acres that's already commercial so you add 1.99 it becomes 20 something Point Acres so if they truck stop you can do it yes and I'm I'm tell you know the taxes are going to be more on that than they are R E I mean if when that property is divided up I'm taking the hit here if they don't come in but I'm just asking to put that property so as a business as a business we can Market the property and and we will be fair we've been fair to everybody back there no matter how many phone calls y'all got no matter what there about if you go back there and talk to anybody that's come and talk to us like the people on River Valley Lane that bought the property we have been fair and we will continue to be fair because I plan to build over there on the river all right let's hear from the opponents now I'm sure there are some if you would come forward state your name you also have three to five good morning my name is Betsy Garrett I am a property owner in Butler farms uh more importantly I'm a mother of a one-year-old daughter and a 2-year-old son and I am against the resoning of this section of land um I want to also clarify before I proceed that in the Planning Commission meeting where this was brought up there was a little bit more background given that this particular track of 1.99 Acres was necessary for a sale to go through that being rezoned to CG was necessary for a sale of uh this portion of the overall 18 acres to go through for this convenience store that is uh proposed to be developed there they needed that additional acreage to build whatever they are proposing to build and I understand Mr Walters does not know and it is not he does not need to know exactly what they're building um and they have every right to build whatever they would like but I would like to reiterate Miss Farmer's point that there are many stripes and other convenience stores around the city that are on uh Lots much smaller than what we would be giving them with the additional 1.99 if it was rezoned there's more than enough

[1:12:27] acreage there to build a convenience store and I myself would love to have a convenience store there and would be a customer of it um so I'm not opposed to the development of a convenience store or anything else along that track what I am opposed to is allowing them this land and yes you're exactly right that they could proceed along the existing CG to build a larger convenience store but they need this additional acreage for their plans and I would like to shut the door if we can on allowing a larger lot which would promote an an 18-wheeler friendly facility there I uh we are moving into our house in Butler Farms next week um it's been a two-year process to get to this point and we intend to stay there for 20 to 30 years with our kids these will be the roads that they learn to drive on I anticipate that one day my kids will be asking me to ride their bikes down to the convenience store to get some candy and some sodas or slushies or whatever is there and I would be devastated if they don't get that opportunity because of the traffic that is coming in and out of that intersection I also have personally seen at the stripes that Miss farmer referenced over on Ben fckin um the 18 wheelers that stay there overnight it's a very sad reality but it is a reality that there are things go that go on after dark in that parking lot that are devastating to be aware of my husband and I have personally seen young girls getting out of the cabs of trucks we've tried to stop some of them before and help them um and I do not want that at the entrance to the neighborhood where I'm raising my family I will do everything that I can to stop this and I encourage you all to remember that these are families these are long-term families in this neighborhood um and we would I I I would also love to state that I personally would want to reach out to Mr Walters and work on options and

[1:14:31] opportunities for businesses that would benefit the neighborhood there that would be a great sale uh of his property uh benefit him financially and the company that he uh represents as well as benefit the neighborhood behind there to my knowledge that has not U been done there's not an amicable relationship with the remainder of the properties behind River Valley to my knowledge um and I could be wrong about that but personally I hope that you will not vote to rezone this and if anyone has questions I would welcome those thank you bety is this the only entrance in and out to where you live I mean did you drve okay yes it is and I also for the record I've been renting a house on the other side of that intersection for the last two years there's another hundreds of families that live right there that would also be using this um with young children as well that would probably want to uh have the same concerns that I have unfortunately these stripes and these other stores are in every neighborhood in our entire city so there's a 100,000 people in this city that can stand up and say the exact same thing you're saying with the same passion there's one of Mile for me and it's it's the exact same thing and they're they're they're all over our city so I appreciate what you're saying but you are not alone here oh I I understand and again we would welcome a convenience store my family would I'll only speak for my family in the neighborhood uh we would welcome a convenience store there and be very very regular customers but um my concern is the larger trucks that would be using that and just for the record I know that there is um a statement that was put in the packet for today about uh traffic going down that it likely would not proceed past uh this gas line natural boundary uh if this was developed and that is inaccurate anyone that lives in that neighborhood and I'll just speak for myself um I'm at our property every day multiple times a day for short windows of time and even in those short windows of time I saw a oil field truck

[1:16:35] 18-wheeler on Butler Drive coming down Darlene turning on Butler Drive it is not uncommon for them to continue right past that intersection and proceed into a neighborhood get stuck there are neighbors who have been up in the middle of the night trying to help these large trucks in and out of there so my goal would be to deter any development that would encourage brid 18 wheelers in that area thank you ma' anyone else here to speak to this any other opponents to this if not is does anyone want to move either way on this we can come to a conclusion is this a first public hearing or yes yes it is it's first I can move to deny we have a motion to deny do I have a second I'll second that one have a motion to deny we have a motion a second that we deny uh if this is a three three vote then we'll have to bring it back at the next meeting when we have a seventh member and I could share with the council that if if there is some desire to have the applicant go back and discuss with the property owners um some possible means of uh you know that they can come to consensus on um there may you may elect to table L for another time if in fact there you it's likely that it may not get approved one option you have mayor I would suggest that we get uh Miss Betsy that just spoke and and get Mike and and the propon I mean the developer or whoever maybe just have a little sit down and I I don't know I'm just throwing that out well I know I know that Mike's been working on this for the last couple of years and I mean well and along with that we have restrict within the the ordinance anyway as far as what can and can't be there and we one thing I want to bring up we're going to vote on later in this meeting we're going to have the same thing coming up in another area and

[1:18:38] I want these the people that are going to vote to deny him to have these rights I hope that they deny the next person too because I am Pro business I want them to be able to do the property what what he wants to do to it I'm not in favor of the truck stop I don't like the truck stop but I am in favor of he's got a 1.9 Acres out there that's floating that's going to be unusable and it's connected already to 18 over 18 Acres out there the Planning Commission voted four to one and the one person that voted against this to move it forward was Valerie priest Valerie called me that night and she said if I would have known this was a Stripes I would have voted for it it would have been a 5-0 vote to move it forward so a lot of people out there have voices and saying we should listen to our Planning Commission and people that that push everything forward to to us as a city council this is one of the things I'm listening to them on well if there was not enough acreage there to do what he wants to do without this he would make me look at it differently but there's already 18 Acres of CG that he can he can sell and they can put a truck stopper anything they want so we're talking about a 10% portion of a total and I don't see how that's going to stop it's not going to stop anything if we deny this zone change he can still sell the rest of it and they put a truck stop making it where he's squaring it up and making it where he can all the property because of that gas line it really just kills it but I really suppose that it's Mark Walters Mike the Mike Walters here decision because if this is a 33 it can come back but if you should happen to lose this Mike you're going to have to wait a year to bring it back again so you make the call Buddy call for the vote let's let's wait until we talk to our proponent here before we call for the vote I think we're going to have to vote on it anyways I think the sticking point is that 18wheeler Plaza that's yeah but we if it's CG we can't we can't stop that put we can't we can't we can't say what they can and cannot do all we can do is change the Zone but just so the the neighborhood understands that we're listening to their concerns you know just we're just the middlemen I mean we're just you want the vote Mark

[1:20:41] uh M do you want us to hold off and wait till we get Marty here let's hold off hold off a to vote would be like kissing your sister and I don't want to lose either would you pull your motion and allow us to wait no okay we do have a motion to deny and we do have a second do I have further we got one more comment come up Paul PA Alexander I want to remind you guys uh Valley View we had those duplexes going in and we barely passed that now there's a Walmart going in a Walmart community that's worse a't it okay you you don't take the stripes right now you may have a truck stop there it is a good location this drops would block a truck stop from coming in later deny it and see what you get he's going to sell that property he's got to make money you cannot deny people the right to do business and make money you can't stop them it's already it's already zoned it's already allowable I think you're going to cause a problem go with what works right now this is obvious to me I'm worried about what's going to happen I just can see it block this and then you got to truck Stu and we're not listening to our Planning Commission I mean if if we're not going to listen to them then we need to get them all off of there and start all over again we do have a motion to deny we have had Council comment we've had public comment and if there's no other public comment I'm going to call for the vote the motion has been made that we deny the zone change from R to CG all of those in favor please say I I I oppose nay nay so let's see the Nays okay it's n oh the Nay okay we have four Nays and we have two to deny anyone want to make a motion to approve I move that we accept the ordinance as presented second do have a motion I do have a second that we change it from r& E to CG all in favor say I I I any opposed opposed two opposed put a 4 two on this one and let's move on thank you

[1:22:43] Patrick it has been asked uh there are a lot of people here today with Republic and uh the gregories that's been asked that we take number 18 and pull this one up next because I think there's a lot of people here dealing with this trash issue maybe more than they're dealing with the mobile homes so if Council will authorize us to move number 18 up we will do so do I have any problem from the Council on the right side no everybody all right on the left side okay and I apologize to the mobile home people but there's not many there's not as many of you here as there is the Republic and the TDS people so let's move on to number 18 Shane are you ready we don't have Shane do we he's around here some he's not too far away probably didn't know he is there he is number 18's consideration of authorizing City staff to negotiate two separate contracts regarding request for Proposal o114 with Republic Waste Services of Texas limited for one the lease and operation of the S Angelo sanitary Landfield and for number two waste collection services for the city of St Angelo Mr celton your answer okay I'll catch my breath sorry buddy didn't mean to do that to you upstairs had to run down okay uh mayor council members we um we sent out rfps for uh Solid Waste Services uh for both landfill operations and for collections um to see what was out there we sent out seven uh or we had seven requests for uh people to send rfps to we sent those out um stated in your background um and we received two back one from Republic Services of Texas and one from Texas Disposal Systems the um um we got in we got in our sponses uh distributed them to the uh evaluation

[1:24:49] committee we uh uh the valuation committee went through and we looked looked at them we got together we met uh we we scored both uh proposals based on uh established criteria in the RFP uh the criteria was Financial impact operational experience of the respondent financial qualifications and stability of the respondent adherence to specifications and additional beneficial criteria that may or may not have been submitted within the proposals um the the ranking for the proposals um based on uh committee evaluations was uh for the uh lease operation of the sanitary land pill Republic Waste Services of Texas was ranked first Texas Disposal Systems was ranked second uh ranking for the waste collection service Republic Waste Services uh of Texas was ranked first Texas Disposal system was ranked second uh the staff is recommending um and the committee uh that uh reviewed these is recommending that uh staff or that Council authorizes staff to negotiate a uh two contracts two separate contracts one for um the operation of the sanitary landfill and then secondly for the um solid waste collection Services um now this is we're just asking for the ability to to negotiate a contract with the person that scored the highest on this if we cannot reach an agreement or um negotiate an agreement and accept an agreement between both parties we will come back to council and ask for your permission to um seek uh authorization to negotiate with the second highest ranked uh proposal that

[1:26:52] we had so this is stct stly just authoriz authorization to negotiate this is not a final contract we will bring all that stuff back to y'all and present it to you as a whole uh for y'all's for y'all's approval to U finalize and authorize uh city manager to uh sign a final contract I know the reason we set this committee up is so that this could be could be very stringently vetted so that we would be able to determine what was best for our city and our committee did vet this thing and they ranked it and the ranking was for Republic on this so I mean our our committee has done its job it has done what we ask it to do so the question we have today is is do we vote to give you the authority to continue to negotiate with the number one ranked which is Republic on both categories and if you cannot reach a negotiated settlement that is beneficial to both of us the city and to the provider that you would come back for another we would come back to ask for negotiations with the number with the second with the second rank okay short proposal I was just curious as if uh we wanted to request a time frame for negotiations you know so we can get this wrapped up put to bed well it's got to be done pretty quick because it expires in July 14 so kind of a natural time Frank No Reason by May 1st I mean we've got 30 days you know so no Reon 30 days would do it Shane I would hope that we would have a very good idea within the next 30 days as to where we stand and and hopefully uh within that 30 days you know I I would hope by uh the May 15th meeting that we are standing here with a document that we we feel very comfortable with presenting to the city council so I don't see a problem with that I mean we're we have a natural time restraint I'm move for motion uh to allow staff to commence negotiations

[1:28:58] with Republic who scored first and to uh complete those negotiations uh and an answer back to the council within 30 days so May 1st with regard to both uh the contract and the lease there's two landfill both them one motion both of them yes ma'am thank you and with a Target Target May one yes certainly come back before then but yeah and if there's a problem then we would know where we were anyway taret what is our first meeting in May what what day is that Alicia May May 6th no idea I don't think the 15th would work but it may fifth she oh yeah the mayor has this little black I can tell you somebody knock him upside the head May how how about that Charlotte that's fine that at first meeting in May I don't giv up time shouldn't Shane should we're going to do our darnest sir okay that's okay motion has been made do I have a second on this second okay I do have a motion I do have a second do I have any further Council comments on this anyone care to speak Mr wock go ahead well I just like to compliment everybody that served on the committee uh the staff and the uh three members of the city council uh in in the meetings I had uh it was apparent to me that everybody had done their homework and spent many many many many hours and days going through I don't know Rodney what four five 600 Pages uh more than you could even count and uh everybody seemed to uh be able to distill that information to the relevant parts and and focus in on what was best for the citizens of this town everybody seemed to go into it uh with an open mind and and the understanding of the importance of getting this right for the citizens of the community and uh the state did the same thing we uh we got this thing on Friday and uh had to immediately drop everything we were doing and work on it

[1:31:02] for three or four days and including Shane and and everybody and uh uh I was really impressed and and appreciative of what everybody did and you know we all have other things to do but uh this is one of the most important things that that this Council will have to decide on and uh I I'm real comfortable what we did uh there is no doubt in my mind that the the scoring uh was appropriate and uh uh I'm willing to talk to my constituents at the relevant time is to the reasons for the decision but uh uh uh I'm very comfortable that this is going to be in the best interest of the city if if Shane can negotiate the type of contract that we believe that we can attain thank you sir Rodney I just want to compliment Shane and his staff I they did an awesome job putting this together I mean I don't know how many hours you put into this but it was an unbelievable amount the packages that we got from both of the companies were outstanding they both did a really good job putting them together I don't think I've read more financial statements from anybody and it was just crazy amount of documents that we had that were involved in this and we had to read through on this so I feel like uh either company would be a good company to work with one company just stood out a little more than the other if we can't get anything worked out with them then we you know like you said we'll move on to the second company either company will end up being a good company to work with in the end any further comment Council I have to agree with my committee members I was first time I've had the opportunity to work with change department and um all of the clerical the order uh it was excellent was outstanding it made um easy to read and follow and the way you conducted the meeting our chair it was just um made a hard task easier thank you let's open it up to the public anyone in the public care to comment on

[1:33:05] this need you to tell us your name and you've got three to five sir my name is Charles young um and I don't have a vested interest one way or the other um the discussion that you just had I found as interesting the last time this this RFP went out there was a request for proposal was 37 years ago that was one of the numbers that was thrown out and discussed at the city council meeting that was in November you weren't here 37 years ago 13,541 days 13,541 days it took the city 97 days to come up with the RFP and get it in the hands of the businesses the businesses had 40 days to go through this and produce their proposals they were turned in on a Friday reviewed over many many many many days as you guys said letters rejecting picking Republic and rejecting TDS were dated and sent out on Tuesday the following Tuesday I don't know how a committee met many many many days when they received proposals on a Friday made a determination either Saturday which I'm I don't know whether you guys worked on a Saturday or Sunday or a Monday no didn't work on Saturday or Sunday we didn't we didn't meet on Saturday or Sunday okay worked on but the letter the letters that went out that I have seen saying that there was going to be an intent to negotiate with Republic was dated on Tuesday so we spent 13,541 days deciding for this to go out to an RFP 97 days creating an RFP 40 days getting it back and one working day deciding which one way we're going to go the appearance of this as a feda comple makes me nervous I know several of the people that were on the committee that reviewed this were against the issuance of an RFP to start with that was obvious in the in

[1:35:09] the meeting that was held here in November um the RFP went out even it it had a grudging feel to it grudgingly we will look out for the best interest of St Angelo um there was a lot of discussion that went on in that meeting that in fact one of the comments you made Mr w law was we don't want to change horses in Midstream contrary to this being not 1850 um we spent a lot of time and I say we I mean the city council members spent a lot of time defending Republic talking about Republic talking about what a great job they've done and how they're good for the city I didn't hear a single person sitting at that at those seats up there discuss the be or use the term best interest of the City not one time what worries me is this is happening so fast under such and it it seems like it's almost H we're we're not even really going to discuss we don't want public input we don't want anyone any of our constituents to see what their options are their rfps haven't been available to the the public at large I called and requested one I was told it wasn't available to me not really sure why but I was told it wasn't available to me I thought it was a public document I thought I would be able able to have access to it I didn't get it my concern is that time frame these were turned in on a Friday the letters were sent out on Tuesday that doesn't give you many many many days to what was the term you used thoroughly vet this when you take oneth of the time to review the rfps that it took you to generate the document in the first place it frightens me because it makes me think this is a cursory examination of this document it's a cursory examination of the long-term best interest of this town and it totally disregards all the comment that I have seen from people in neighborhoods at schools I'm Treasurer at Western Little League I'm treasurer of of a PTO at an elementary school here

[1:37:12] I'm on the board at Glenn I've talked to parents I've talked to teachers I've talked to kids all of the concerns that they have have been voiced to everyone and it doesn't seem like any of them have been heard and they can't be heard in 24 hours it is not possible for you guys to have vetted this as thoroughly as you claim to have and done it in such a short time frame my con my question is who was on the committee you weren't here for the for the request for the RFP who else was on the committee winky okay he voted against going to the RFP you voted to do the RFP how how often did you guys meet we first of all I I take offense to you not say to you saying that I wouldn't do what's best for the city I said this I said this gives the appearance of you not doing I'm going to tell I'm going to tell you what's best for the city that I look through these contracts if you weigh both of these contracts and you get both of them which you haven't seen but we no I would love you can't you can't yet I know uh Rodney we're still negotiating here so there's any if there's any questions that needs to be sent to Shane because this is still a negotiation that we're doing and the reason we didn't make this public is because this is a negotiation that we have with two entities under seat so it is not public information and my concern is not with the negotiation of contract that I'm assuming that hasn't started yet since you haven't until we vote right so the qu my concern is not the negotiation of the contract my concern is the vetting which you talked about and I I appreciate your comment sir and that was the question I had that I haven't gotten answered is how often did you guys meet over these many many many days sir do you not believe or feel that uh three people can discuss and go over the package via the phone or you know not being in the same room but they are looking at the material and studying and talking to one another Well Mr warw who was on the committee said y'all didn't

[1:39:13] meet over the weekend didn't work over the weekend you've got one minute I appreciate that didn't work over the weekend so that leaves you these were turned in Friday afternoon so maybe you worked on them Friday afternoon maybe you worked on a Monday maybe you worked on Tuesday morning before the letter went out it seems like that is an tragically short time frame for something as important as this as expensive as this and something that has taken 37 years to get to this point for you guys to take one day to do that it worries me no it was we appreciate your comments it wasn't one day though that's wrong and I asked the question I got it on Friday I started reading within as soon as I pulled it out of the box I sat down and I started reading so you had Saturday Friday Saturday Monday letters went out Tuesday I can tell you I mean when you look at contracts if you've ever looked at contracts and somebody's negotiating you talk about hundreds of pages no thousands thousand that's a lot to go through in four days yes it is but when you look at the main points it doesn't seem like you put in the the right amount of time to me right it's the let's let's kill this right now thank you for your comment sir thank you for your direct answers do we have any further comment come come ahead need you name and you got three to five sir thank you very much I'm Stanley Mayfield own a business here in St Angelo and of course a resident of St Angelo for uh a number of years uh I saw the article in the paper and was very confused by it because it uh seemed to um excuse me uh run through this entire process very quickly and uh I was puzzled by the fact that there would be negotiations after a vendor was chosen which to me is is pretty tough to do uh how do you negotiate after your your competitors the competition issue

[1:41:16] is is no longer uh in the discussion um if I read right this morning on one of the newscasts this is a $450 million a year contract and what is it what is the term of the contract Shane 34 is it pardon no there's excuse me I'm sorry there there is no dollar figure or financial impact at this point to this contract it's it has not been negotiated to determine what the financial impact of this contract would be if we are successful in the negotiation with the first company so historically what is the value of this contract last 10 years it's um we would have to get back to you I can't I can't specifically give you a direct answer as to the value of a of a particular contract because this was over both Collections and landfill management at the same time so we we know what uh annual revenues are and annual annual expenditures have been but we we wouldn't be able to provide that in a financial statement if you'd like to see it somebody give us a ballpark number what what kind of money are we talking about in this contract what is ITA no no one knows the historically we don't know how much pardon the members thoroughly vetted it surely they know no one has an idea of ballark figure yes we do and we can't divulge that information there's certain point because we're still in negotiations with the two companies we're actually we're going to start with one if we don't get it worked out with the one then we go to the second one okay San Angelo live published this morning this is a $450 million a year operation is that correct that's wrong

[1:43:18] that's not okay if you know that's not correct then what is correct a ballpark you don't have to divulge anyone's bid Mr Mayfield the impact to the company has there are two impacts one has to do with the operation of landfill one has to do with the operation of the collections uh there is a piece of that Revenue that comes to the city historically uh and there is a piece of that Revenue that the company keeps those amounts are yet to be negotiated looking forward asking historically historically can anyone give me a ballpark figure of what these the value of the contracts that you're negotiating and you will sign in my opinion Mr Mayfield if I may uh the term whether it's 10 20 or 30-year contract uh I would have to agree with you that what I have viewed that it is a multi-million dollar contract well s Angelo alive I don't know you tell me where they came up with a number 450 million maybe someone is here from that that organization could tell us where they arrived at the number but um Mr Mayfield the city's budget yes in the landfill Enterprise fund for this year is two approximately $2.1 million and expenditures are a similar amount slightly less than that that is not and a full representation of all the revenues and expenditures involved in these contracts that is just the city piece so 2 million two 2.1 to $2.2 million per year has historically been the city piece of that activity okay I'm not even sure what that really represents what what kind of income total gross income uh dollars is this contract would be valued at for the vendor then

[1:45:23] depends on the ter both collections from commercial other depends on the negotiation process that we're going to start with them we're about to if the vote goes through give him the authority to go and negotiate that and then it'll be brought to us of this this isn't a rid in stone yet and we they just want to go and try to hash out about $4 million a year for pickup 33,000 residents $10 a resident $4 million a year it's a ballpark it's what he wants that's that's just on pick up so the the the landfill is much more complicated but so 10 years that's $40 million just for picking up the landfill still out of it so we're getting closer it's not 400 million you see what I'm saying we're getting closer it's a big big contract it's a big number okay Mr Mayfield we'd be glad to sit down with you for financial perspectives well all of us in business today are looking how much time does he have at our budgets um he's pretty close we're looking at payroll costs that have increased beyond anything we've ever experienced taxes are going up and I find it really interesting that we have a public bid that is not very transparent and I was U shocked to find out we're going to select a vendor and then negotiate a price is is that not backward this is permissible under the law relating to proposals and it's a it's a process that and this has been published in the bid packet the process is um over a series of negotiations and it's been expressed correctly by the department so we are also as Council has said a numerous times uh entitled by law to protect the information and not disclose information relating to our negotiations until after the contract is awarded we do have prices Mr Bayfield we do know

[1:47:26] what one's going to charge us and what they're going to do what they have proposed we know on the other hand what the other has proposed and what they're going to charge and what they expect we know all these things it is part of the package the RSP that they provided this information but until we are able to negotiate and come to a final decision we are not going to show our cards and while we are doing today is just authorizing what the committee has chosen as the very as the one that is first out of the two the one that is first we're allowing our city management to negotiate with them to come up with the negotiated contract if we cannot negotiate what we want with them then we will go to the one that was rated second and we will negotiate with them we know what they want we know what they want for collection we know what they want for the landfill we know all of these things but it's not to be made public until we have come to a conclusion and you're asking for us to give all of this information to the public and we haven't even negotiated ated it yet we've just simply vetted to get the one that we feel is best and until we negotiate we're not going to give you those figures and let me add the TDS doesn't know what Republic submitted and Republic doesn't know what TDS it is still two separate entities we are just asking for asking the council to give permission to go ahead and negotiate this thing out based on the decision and on the information that we have from the two rfps one of them is better than the other so we want to negotiate with the better one well I can understand that you you don't when you're making a business deal you don't you don't tell everybody exactly what you're buying and what you're selling to give your competitors the chance it has to be a secret negotiation until something is made at that time we can make everything public but until we negotiate we've got to we've got to do this the best way well I I I guess I'm I'm fairly limited on my experience in in public bids when we in our company bid on um municipality bids and state bids um throughout all of West Texas um we do submit bids and people select based on but the people that you

[1:49:30] submit the bid to does not make your bid public to the other people that are making bids because then they can change their bid it has to be a bid has to be secret and it has to be it has to be kept secure until the decision is made and that's what we've got we've got two bids but now we have to figure out which is the best and that he done the negotiation I was puzzled somewhat by the procedure uh and when you were evaluating the financial impact of The Proposal uh that the financial impact uh will be established through the negotiation process but that's after uh you've eliminated we have not eliminated not El we have not eliminated we are taking the one that was first and we're going to negotiate with them if we cannot come to a negotiation then we will go to the one that was chosen second and we will negotiate and you've got I've already given you about seven minutes but okay let me ask you just a couple quick how often are these how often is this put out for bid this is a sizable contract this is the first time it's been done in probably 40 years 37 according to7 in 37 years that's remarkable um now you that's a good thing though Mr Mayfield that we are doing this and there was competition there were seven companies that came to the initial meeting for the RFP so seven companies came in to look at it I think there were three or four that were kind of serious about it and they kind of moved forward a little bit and then two Rose to the top and finished it out for them to finish it out they put in thousands and thousands of dollars if you could see the packages which I think all these packages will be public after we've made our decision right but we're not going to make public and you've got you've got less than a minute sir you've already had about eight minutes or 5 minute and I I appreciate your Indulgence um I um have a time up a dump outside of city limits and I did use an alternate source to Republic and I got a 20% larger dumpster for 39% less money that did spark my interest right thank you for your time

[1:51:33] thank you Mr Mayfield any other public comment on this I have to ask a question before I get started I didn't hear about recycling are we going after recycling it's a negotiation neoti part of the negotiation Paul we had a proposal from TDS on Recycling and picking up we had a we had a uh we had a contract or a price from Republic on Recycling and picking up we have not negotiated this we have not got figures yet okay we simply have got the two proposals we have picked the best proposal to start with understand and after we if after we negotiate if this is not acceptable then we'll go to the second one to negotiate with them and if we don't like the second one all right go out again but we are still negotiating the RFP asked for multiple choices and there were multiple choices by both companies they pretty much submitted the same thing I suppose we've been doing this for for me I've been doing this since late 2010 and I've been asking and asking the public about Recycling and still they overwhelmingly wants recycling they'll even eliminate a pickup per week keep that in mind I think it'd be a travesty I think they would Revolt if you didn't have recycling so I think you you've got to do it all right now here here's I'm I'm a bit surprised and I just Tak a little different angle because I I've worked this and I Know It intimately except for the last 10 months but when did TDS ever say no to anything Texas disposals never said no to anything and this is something I recognize about the company they're very bright people uh I asked can we have green trash cans and they said sure you know green looks like a bush when it's stacked against the house blue is advertising what so I asked about this with Republic and they are hesitant to give us green trash cans it's a difficult thing for them I never got that from from Texas Disposal Systems so you know the very uh very easy to work with uh they we talked about uh seasonal pickups uh large item pickups never got a know from them always got a yes and I'm just wondering what happened and I

[1:53:35] can't know that answer but it makes me curious uh and I remember when I came in to the city council in 2010 Harold Dominguez was counting the days that that contract ran out so I contacted Harold Dominguez last night I said has anybody talked to you no what what was it that he was counting the days of you know why did he not appreciate what was going on with Republic at that time four years ago and then I see Texas Disposal Systems having to defend themselves by bringing those subjects up to you guys why are they having to defend themselves and bringing that subject up it's because we've all forgotten it apparently and I'm not sure that's a good idea I don't and it just it just appears that way because I can only read the information I have and it makes me wonder uh and I can't get into that I know you guys can't get into with me right here I also thought that uh both entities would get to stand up here and present to the entire Council a summary at least to where you guys all had a fair shot at hearing what they have to say and I think that was skipped over if I'm correct I'm not sure I thought they were going to give the be given the opportunity now have written summaries let me tell you about what I learned today trash pickup today if it's a windy day and I stick my trash can out in the morning the lid can pop up and trash goes out and this is a windy th season why would I do that because I don't know what Tom Republic is coming by and I mentioned over and over and over you've got to be predictable they come at 8:00 and I don't have my trash can out so I put my trash can on at 8:00 and they don't come till 4:00 on a windy day that's when the trash goes everywhere I asked that question with with Texas Disposal Systems and they say hey you know what we have a GPS system in our truck we know where that truck is they're going to hit the same spot within 20 minutes every single time and we're watching that route to see if we can make it more efficient well why because they save money they're predictable you see where I'm going with this saving money saves US money if if somebody

[1:55:37] didn't pick up the trash can at at Texas Disposal Systems and you call and say my trash can wasn't picked up within 20 minutes they're going to send you a picture of the car that was parked in front of your trash can that prevented them from picking it up Mr Mayor I'm calling the time limit well we was it really 5 minutes about one minute left yeah I I know how much time I have all right so so it's a really amazing company it is a really amazing company and I'm going to mention this last fact they're as local as we're going to get these are two St Angelo boys that made this company and when they come to St Angelo and work here they're going to work with the rest of West Texas creating a network of of uh recycling infrastructure that will come through St Angelo to go to Austin when they go to buy parts they can buy from s Angelo vendors I don't think the Republic can do that you got to asked that question but they have National buying systems they can't buy from our local people this is a pretty much a local company and and I can only say I'm surprised because I cannot get into the negotiations I realize that I appreciate thank you any other comment good morning mayor and Council my name is Tony Vel I come as a private citizen and also have served professionally as a public public servant as a mayor in a previous City and commissioner in a in a different County as well and wanted to uh first of all commend you guys for uh putting this for up for an RFP I think that's wonderful it was long overdue and I think the process has taken its its process and uh uh the committee has come up with a recommendation and I agree with that recommendation from my experience as a customer as a citizen and also as a public servant serving in in uh these different capacities Republic has been outstanding they adjust what I appreciate them most about about them is that they adjust to the situations at hand uh they're always conscience of the customer and not the

[1:57:39] city but the citizens of the cities that they deal with uh we had just quick response every time that we dealt with any situation they were always there to to assist us and make making sure that the citizens were were uh completely satisfied and the customer friendly service that they give is outstanding their professionalism uh you know just and another thing that they I also appreciate about them is they they involve themselves in the community uh you see them all over the place and uh serving in different boards in the citizens and Civic groups they're always there to to give a helping hand so I app appreciate your time and and hope that you consider Republic to continue working with the Republic thank youy anyone else got to comment yes my name is Jim Turner I've been a longtime blogger and observer of negotiations Contracting and so on and City and other government entities around one of the things I think that would be great if the city did disclose was the checklist that they used to decide what is important in this contract what are the points we evaluated it on and that needs to be presented to the public so they know that we emphasize this because it's not just a dollar amount figure that needs to go into a contract like this there are a number of different factors and each one of those needs to be weighted uh the impact is not just economic it's social cultural recycling is going to be an impact all of those factors need to be evaluated and how they were evaluated what weight they were given can be given to the public without disclosing any secrets of the negotiation these are the factors we're looking at this is the people that

[1:59:42] scored the best on these factors and I have seen in a number of negotiations where at the end of the day before they get into the ACT actual figures this is how much better we think they did on this than the other guy without disclosing what they did to make themselves better that checklist those factors that you looked at Beyond just a numerical monetary bottom line need to be made public standard as part of this decision standard times made them public different the different Factor standard times made in public I mean it was there it needs to be part of this meeting it needs to be part of the presentation here because right now not everybody reads the Standard Time paper for a number of reasons and whether the paper has it the paper is not the city government of the city of San Angelo city of San Angelo needs to do that as part of this deliberation thank you Shane we don't I don't have the actual weights that we're given on the criteria right now I can get those and we can give them out but the the rating criteria were um for both both sides of it waste collection and for landfill lease operations Financial impact of The Proposal operational experience of the respondents uh Financial qualifications and stability of the respondents adherence to the specifications as outlined in the RFP and any additional beneficial criteria that uh were the respondents gave during their uh uh in their proposal and those were the criteria that the committee used uh and waited against and I don't I don't actually have those weights right with me right now but we can get those pretty quick Shane you mentioned those well you did your presentation while ago as well okay correct um I do want to make a comment mayor um I do want to point out that on the committee it wasn't just the city council members we did have staff on the committee as well

[2:01:44] I was on the committee Michael Dane was of course uh Shane and Patrick were also involved in our legal uh was also involved um we understand as far as getting the information on a Friday and then having a meeting on a Tuesday I can tell you at this point that there's a lot of information that all of us went through uh Council uh as well as the staff this is something that's a really big contract you know uh I know that Paul mentioned a while ago did anybody talk with u our previous city manager I can tell you right now why he was concerned it was the portion that involved the landfill we feel that that was addressed in the RFP process and uh I think that if anything what we got back we feel pretty good moving forward after we properly vetted it we did spend a lot of time a lot of hours on this staff as well as city council so I never want the the uh Community to think that we took this lightly we didn't uh this was a process again that uh I know that poor uh when you look at Patrick and Shane the number of hours has spent on it as well when we came into the meeting I could look around with everybody involved in that meeting there was a lot of highlights on the information went out a lot of questions a lot of uh notes on the sides that we discussed as well so again I know that we don't want to make it seem like we're trying to be secretive as far as what we're doing uh what we want the best for our community we want to benefit our community and we're being very cautious at this point moving forward and make sure we negotiate a deal that is absolutely best for the community and that's all we're looking for at this point Thank you anyone else could to comment on this come ahead Mr Gregory pass give it to her please okay state your name you do have three to five I'm Bobby Gregory uh president and principal owner of Texas Disposal Systems my brother Jimmy the other owner is here today thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you today and

[2:03:46] thank you all for putting this out for RFP uh last Friday when we received the letter it said the selection committee has completed its review of the RFP and will request authorization to enter into negotiations with Republic Service at today's meeting the letter that was attached said I mean the the the re on it said RFP selection notification it was our fear then our belief then that a selection had been made by the committee uh it appears that that is that is the case at least for the the first place and that we would be shut out otherwise this left me wondering whether the three TDS proposals for landfill services and the Seven TDS proposals for solid waste and recyclables collection had been reviewed or would have an opportunity to come before you again also by the wording of today's agenda it leaves the question as to whether the work of the selection committee is complete or whether it continues on since the city uh staff is the one being directed to um to be U negotia doing the negotiating the move to negotiate without public consideration of TDS proposal raises significant concerns first it ignores uh the fact that Republic has already has the environmental responsibility and liability related to the operation of the city landfill for more than 37 years and from being the primary hauler of waste into the landfill from the city and from the numerous communities in the San Angelo area secondly it fails to publicly uh answer questions TDS has asked about in its RFP response about fees that Republic has been collecting from commercial customers for years apparently without authorization any overcharges to commercial accounts within the city uh above what is allowed uh the exclusive

[2:05:49] Operator by the city ordinance among other things should be documented and considered within the final evaluation of the contractor selection this can only be done if the city staff is able to discuss these issues with TDS representatives in contract negotiations and that the staff understands the issues and how they affect the more than 2,000 captive commercial and rolloff accounts which Republic bills directly based on information made public in the RFP process in combination with a review of commercial rates approved by city ordinance as well as actual copies of invoice voices from commercial customers located inside the city which illustrate billing for services substantially higher than approved by city ordinance we have reason to believe that Republic's invoice charges to commercial customers have been uh greater than uh the approved than that approved by ordinance by an amount in except of $1 million per year it is our understanding through a review of past invoices that this process of charging additional fees and environmental uh fuel fees and environmental fees greater than what we believe is allowed by city ordinance has gone on for many years TDS has specifically asked staff uh uh for uh ordinances supporting these fees but has not yet received the information our review of all pay past uh raid ordinances revisions that we could find shows that there is no such authorization for the significant amount added to fees that Republic is now billing s Angelo commercial accounts some of the council members who were not placed on the committee uh stated at the time that they they were fine with that because they would get to hear all the presentations it appears to me by today's action if you approve it you will cut off an opportunity to have

[2:07:52] a presentation by TDS because there will be no TDS will not be in the in the in the hunt uh why should the city council give Republic Representatives the impression that the selection of the city's contractor under the RFP process has been completed and that TDS will not even be interviewed or allowed to make a presentation to city council we can only assume Republic has off one Mr Gregory one minute TDS requests that the city council not approve agenda item 18 and thereby not direct City staff to negotiate exclusively with the Republic instead TDS requests that city council and staff post a separate agenda item for city council consideration at its next meeting to direct City staff to negotiate contracts with both Republic and TDS for both landfill and collection service and to allow both respondents to make presentations to their proposal to counsil prior to moving forward with any contract negotiations this would allow the C the city to fulfill the intent of the RFP and enable the city council to have the choice between two contractors when considering your final decision thank you very much thank Mr Gregory anyone else care to comment come ahead sir state your name you got three to five buddy Marty Barons with Cisco equipment here in St Angelo I'm also on the board of directors of the St Angelo blue society and I'm here to speak on behalf of Republic Services in regards to their community support and involvement every year we do a festival a Blues Festival that's free to the public which is uh this year it's on May 10th everybody's invited and uh Republic Services has always been a a strong supporter of this we we generate scholarships out of this and and that's a big part of why they're

[2:09:55] involved I see their involvement in lots of other activities and uh charitable events around town uh they not only involve theirselves with our Festival uh financially and in kind support but also they have people show up and hand out water and and uh set up a ttin there uh I know this is generally All About the Benjamins here on this RFP however in regards to uh some other uh items outside of of that I I sure support Public Services thank you myty who's next anything further you need to add Shane anything Council needs to add any other further comments Charlotte's uh will be right back taking a little break she's taking a little break I might just make a comment or two while we're killing time uh I I think it's a little unfortunate the way it worked out that that we got so compressed with time I would have liked more time too and I always likeed more transparency uh it's just the way the way the municipal bidding process is does not allow us to have the transparency that we would have liked and we're running up against uh the expiration of the other contract and I wish that we could have had more time I wished I hadn't didn't have to dedicate four days in a row and pull off my own individual businesses and and uh spend all the time going through all these documents carefully but that's the way it worked out and I don't think it's anybody's fault um and it just it it just slipped up on us TimeWise I guess I guess we could

[2:11:59] blame Shane a little bit because his RFP was so comprehensive and so voluminous uh and and so uh slanted or or directed toward the protection of the citizens of this town and making sure that that everything was put on the table uh that it took a good while for this RS to come out and I wish he'd come out a couple of months earlier but you know sometimes we don't have the luxury of of having the amount of time that we want and uh uh but here again I'm real confident this is going to come out for the best for the city uh however it turns out and uh you know we're unpaid volunteers up here taking our time and and we we played we we took the cards that were dealt us and and we reacted and did the best we know how and I think some of us have experience in financial matters and legal matters and U uh as as the city manager said we looked at all this stuff real carefully and discussed it in detail and uh there there was no cursory examination of this whatsoever thank sir got a little more time all right there's another public comment hi my name is devasquez I'm the executive director for Downtown St Angelo and I I believe in previous Council meetings I've also spoken about the philanthropic work that Republic Services has provided Downtown St Angelo in relationship to a major project that we undertook and I know I don't I hate reiterating this point but uh the fact was that the largest number of in-kind contribution to helping us with the uh revitalization efforts that we're undertaking with the Roosevelt Hotel was uh Republic Services so I just leave that on at your hands but uh I do know that they've been a real good partner for for our community in relationship to what that does and also brought up and I I don't think legally you can do this but uh I will make this point uh I know from a coming

[2:14:03] from a corporate uh P background I know that when we looked at suppliers and vendors that we were looking at we did look at that component of what is what is this company doing in the community that we serve so uh I just wanted to throw that out as well if you have any questions i' be more than happy to answer thank you de thank you call for the vote Mr Mayor iiz haven't got a motion yet yeah and it was second whole nine yards but uh I want to apologize for having to leave quickly trouble breathing here but I did hear every word because it's piped all the way through so I didn't miss anything okay motion has been reiterate the motion I've there you go I have motion to authorize staff to negotiate contract and lease with the Republic white service of Texas limited within the designated time presenting final draft contracts to city council by May 6th and as presented was made by council member farmer seconded by fliming okay didn't we say both the the landfill and waste collection both both aspects all right we've had Council comment we have had public comment if there's any other comment from the public now it's your time right now we're about to vote on this all in favor say I I any oppose nay drop a so on it let's move on to number nine which is the second hearing and consideration of adopting an ordinance of the city of s Angelo Texas amending the code of ordinances of the city of St Angelo by amending appendix a fe schedule article 2000 building and construction by creating a section 2.16 mobile home park manufactured housing Park and recreational vehicle park annual operators permit providing a severability clause providing compliance for the Texas open meetings act providing for an effective day Mr Howard okay all right um thank you again

[2:16:11] numbers 9 through uh 12 all relate obviously to the same item and so what I'd like to do is maybe summarize Patrick could you a little bit let let everybody leave just a just a minute or did you want to do these one at a time did we want to do these one at a time we want to lump them all together they're all well I was going to Briefly summarize all of what's happened today since we've actually had multiple opportunities to discuss that's still one a time one at time with expeditious Le one one at a time expeditiously one minute each well what I'll do is some Miz the comments that relate to all of them and then we can act on them individually if that's the pledge of the council okay okay you ready now go okay all right um since our last meeting I just want to Briefly summarize some of what uh has uh occurred um some of what some of what has happened at the meeting and essentially uh based on your directive what conclusions we came to so at the last meeting in March there was some discussion about items 9 through 12 and uh just to refresh your memory and this was included in the packet uh this Council discussed eliminating the proposed fee associated with the transfer of the annual operators permit um also modifying the fee proposed with the annual operators permit um to increase that from 425 to 1,000 uh also um the renewal fee uh for new parks from $250 to $600 um in addition to eliminating the the requirement of having the the process of submitting an application for operators permit um you'd asked us to revisit the requirement for site plans and then also direct the staff to meet with members of

[2:18:14] the uh industry to get uh Clarity on some of the language related to some of the def for what was included in the packet so uh um staff what did such and it was a fruitful outcome we were able to clarify language related to some of the definitions that were where there was concerns for um we believe that what you was before you in the packet and was presented today what's presented today um to the public uh also meets that intent that you provided as far as Direction on the at the last meeting move to approve if your presentation is finished I I have one objection to to this one and it's on page 13 of 19 at the bottom I talked to the exist existing Park owners here in town and they have at the last sentence of that if you look at it can we put it up there where everybody can see that we have that yeah I'm not well it says the last sentence of of that page says this exemption exemption shall not apply with respect to the operation of Park developed or expanded after the effective date of this ordinance it falls under the section of pre uh uh exemption of pre-existing Parks I want to strike that last sentence because I've been told that that means a couple things one that they cannot add any Extra Spaces or anything to their current location correct and then it also means that they couldn't expand like if they I believe there's three parks in town that can expand at this time they could never expand they'd have to fall into the new rules to expand right and what I'll do at this point and I know that that was a a um item that came up as we talked to the individuals in the industry um I'm going to let the City attorney talk to you about the issue about vested rights essentially the intent was to actually provide vesting of rights to to uh Park

[2:20:20] owners um for for existing conditions however the opportunity to vest rights for actions that have not taken place is not would would not be allowed and I'll give them an opportunity to sort of explain that where is that where is that Claus Rodney it's in page 13 and 19 of 19 it's the last sentence it's the last paragraph is kind of what and they're fine with the first part of that paragraph and this is about them being exempt but oh okay you're reading the draft I was looking for it on the on the agenda okay we didn't rece it is on here it's on I've got it up on my screen too yeah that's correct um but we had talked about them being able to kind of operate as they've been operating in the past you know this whole thing again I'm going to hammer this home we when we brought this up we never meant to do anything with the existing owners and we didn't me put a undo hardship on them so we want this to move forward without putting undue hardship on them that is correct and again the idea that we were able to vest uh and not require anything above and beyond um for the existing conditions for the park owners is is in fact the case and uh um we adhere to that however as it relates to the expansion or addition the add adding of new spaces to an existing park or obviously the development of a new park they would in fact have to adhere to the standards and so again I'm going to defer to our City attorney to sort of explain this I concept of vesting and and why that was concern right and it it shouldn't be too incredibly complicated I think we do understand the doctrine of vested rights and those rights to which the uh current de uh owners um are entitled acre um at the time uh of filing the application and they're subject to the laws that are in place and and that's just a very um basic Doctrine based on constitutional principles of property right rights and fairness um I think the what the concern

[2:22:24] is is about uh future development and so I think we had uh used language about additions um or expanses the there's no vested right uh in the future uh they only what they have in place right but I don't want to do that I've talked to the I've talked to the owners out there right now and I I totally I I see your point of view on this also but again you know 6 months or eight months ago when this first came up we weren't trying to hurt these guys that are out there we were trying to stop man camps from coming into the city and this is a this is awesome document we are going to make it where it's going to be very hard to put man camps in the city but if we follow all of this to the tea and I think by talking with the the owners that are out there right now they're happy with everything we've done except for this last sentence there they we' like to take that last sentence out of there and that's if I can interrupt you on this winky I'd like to move that we accept all this ordinance except for that last sentence and strike that R roll it down let's find let me read that last sentence well there actually there's been a small change to that ordinance and let me let me read the the language um it was a slight modification um so I'll read the last um sentence as it's changed this exemption and I'm going try to make it a little bit larger so okay scroll want bring it yeah I'll scroll it down okay okay okay it actually should read this exemption shall not apply with respect to the operation of a park developed we decided to remove the reference to expanded because it would it was a little bit confusing um and continue to read after the effective

[2:24:29] date of this ordinance and then we add we wanted to add or the addition of mobile home manufactured home or re recreational vehicle park spaces to an existing Park okay uh well so therefore I mean we're adhering to the law and we're they're entitled to the rights that have accured under the the under present conditions and uh the concept of you know it sort of runs a foul of the theory of a zoning regulation we're entitled to exercise our police pow so that non-conforming future uses that pose a detriment to the public health welfare and safety um you know we're entitled to protect that and so what you're suggesting um is that uh these future permites and applicants would not be subject to the very laws that we uh they're going to still we developed be and this is the very reason that we had a moratorium to determine what was in the best interest um to our community to develop new regulations for these new types of additional developments and these additional things so we're just you know I think to allow a group of equally situated um Property Owners across the board and they would be equally situated because their new activities and their additions would be no different than someone new stepping in to do it who didn't previously have a park then that would be just fundamentally uh problematic uh on many uh levels is there anything well one of the things that I'm looking at is Marsh the perfect example is Marshall came before us today and we were talking about his two spots that he's going to add and he's going to do the the um I forgot what those called show show

[2:26:32] models Park Model Park models he's going to add two Park models into that well according to the rules that we're about to P pass and he has plenty of room to still do that here he has ton of room to do that if you leave that sentence in there he can't do that and Marshall and uh there there's three other parks in town that have the same same deal where they can put stuff into their park so if we go by the if we pass this ordinance and we make it they he wants to add three more spots well he's got to do the thousand foot setback that we're about to approve he's got to do all the all the ordin all the other uh hardships that are going to make it on the new sites so the only thing I'm asking for is to take is to strike the last sentence in its entirety out of there I want to hear from this hear from the home the park owners themselves and let them tell you what their hardships will be on that in that case I I still think that we're we're not trying to no we didn't want to hurt these guys and these these ladies or these owners we want to just we want to move forward and I'm I'm not trying to do anything illegal I want them to just be able to go along as they were going so these future uses will be non-conforming with the new regulations and they're not vested now there's no vested right in a future development it's vested it acrs at the time the permit application is in place and the project is being developed under the laws that are in place but um that would also be contrary to the whole idea of non-conformity under the zoning ordinance under I think it's chapter six it's non-conforming uses are not allowed they still have to pull a permit they still have to have all their inspections that they're doing now through the city they have to pass we're not just saying oh he can just go out there and five fire up five spes are applicable to those new permits new parks new parks new well that's what I'm that's the point I'm making it is our uh position that additions and um I would say parallel yeah uh growth is equivalent to a new

[2:28:38] park yeah anything El I I I just look at it differently than you and I'm not I'm not saying you're wrong you're wrong my point my opinion is that you know they they six months ago they could have had the opportunity to extend their park and make it bigger and they didn't know that this was going to be coming they probably would have but they didn't they didn't know that we were going to first of all they didn't know we were going to try to add a bunch of fees to them a bunch of inspections to them and change their whole way of making a living and that's why I I think that they've given to us a lot they've given us a lot they they worked with us on these ordinances to set them in place and they've helped us line out what's written there the last thing that they're coming to me on is they would like this to be stricken out of there and I would like it to be stricken out of there what if you just added the word old park does that help does that I mean what's now existing or old or help I want to hear from the owners I don't want to speak for the owners I want the owners to come up and tell you exactly and we got people chomping at the bits that are wanting to come up existing and council member um could I just respond to the idea that whatever plans they may have had um still relate to the development of the project it's not finite so I would I believe um that the uh planning director is going to look at the these proposals to see if they're still within and they're they're just further a project within what was already on file with us so I don't think that is the same type of expansion um that you're that we're running up against I think it's they're entitled to develop their project and so I think we just need to with that said would that affect this individual I just want clarification on that too so well in the spirit of allowing the IND um allowing an individual to continue with the work we believe that it's likely that we'll just

[2:30:40] move forward um because the work was in progress to some degree um however as mentioned the thought is that if in fact we talking about a new proposed expansion or let me say in this case addition of spaces for an existing park it would be in this case subject to new regulations but if there was action that was put in place prior to the moratorium I've obviously we will honor um those subject to all of the other permitting requirements that obviously um have to be maintained thank you if that answers the question yes it does okay you still against D Rodney do what what still against it yeah I can I can I move can I make a motion you start no he's up his motion stands if no one second we get second his motion okay we've got a motion we've got a second so that going to have to be dealt with I agree with you and I don't I don't like these fees I think these fees are I think they're well the fees AR going to affect these guys it's all I'm going to vote against them because I don't like fees so you know I I'll go with you there just to kill the fees uh let's let's get let's get public comment yeah come ahead sir I think uh I'm going to be real quick give you name and three to five okay William uh my name is William Chad CIS and uh thank you for the time you give me uh I am a uh part-time Texas Air National Guard is my halftime job and the other half is I'm a financial advisor here in St Angelo so the past 12 years uh I've done six deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq buil up on nest and a lot of our guys over there trying to retire from the military figuring out how we're going to make money so I can retire uh I got some stuff to hand out here for you that I can go over real quick you guys one there's enough um just kind of the process I've d uh uh Mr danne's helped

[2:32:45] me a lot AJ faers helped me a lot uh C ardman helped me a lot and I just thank you for all your time I bugged you all to death I know I've learned a lot about city council and this is a tough job and I think you guys are I'm I'm in the military and I like standardization and I think the code and the draft that they're making you guys are going in the right direction uh councilman Fleming last thing the only comment I had was like in my Park I have a 5 acre Park I have room to expand am I going to be allowed to expand on a 5 acre Park if there's a 10 acre minimum I guess you know I don't understand the law I just want to make sure I'm protected from that right but uh just to go over real quick what happened uh about a year ago right when this hit the the thing um I decided got some oil business going on in St Angelo took a little Nest TIG that uh my family had from being in the military I had to take a partner my partner happened to be a judge up in Lok we bought a park on St an Street uh over by where your city terminal terminal are if you look on the last pages i' I've uh put some pictures in there to kind of show you where it is it's on Bell and St an over with the city uh M Dead End Road where the city uh facilities are it's a 4.6 acre Park okay the new code is for 10 acres minimum so you know what I want you to do is ignore the new code I'm not I don't trust that the new code is going to get past what I want you to do today is concentrate on the special permit that was approved in 1972 for the park I own okay before we bought this park uh we went to the city council and we had them inspect the the park for zoning violations page two of your document is a letter from Planning and Zoning I'm not here to get anyone in trouble I think the laws are very hard to understand and very very difficult to interpret this uh Kevin boy did his best he uh had voicemails

[2:34:50] he said yep and at the time of the inspections there were RVs in my Park and that's why there's pictures of imagery from Google imagery in there in the back okay so if you read the code this is before we bought the park my Park did not have any zoing violations so we had to pay a premium for this park a premium because of the oil business and it was an old permit that did not have the 30% limit on RVs in the park so the owner demanded a premium well we got this document from city council we paid that premium um started hooking up my RV parks um and I got stopped because uh they said I had I was over my 30% limit for RVs in a mobile home park I said uh not so sure that applies to me they checked with the city attorney she said no that rule doesn't apply to you in fact you're not allowed any RVs in your Park um so when I when I have on you if you go to as a as a as a city council you are not allowed to amend a special permit but what I'm trying to tell you is there was a typographical error in my special permit and here's what I would like you guys to vote on today on page three of your packet you will see the original application for the special permit signed and it was a special permit for a 40 unit trailer park okay see the term trailer park that is very important word this is what the man applied for trailer park uh even had a uh little uh SEC the page after that had the diagram of the park with 43 diagram spaces on it third page I give you a summarization of the 1972 code that the city helped me provide uh special permits that were allowed in 1972 uh you can read is one down here is

[2:36:56] a trailer camp or Park was a special permit that you could apply for there was no mention of the word mobile home as a special permit in 1972 okay I believe it was a synonym a typo error I believe there were the the the minutes from the city were pulled from this meeting all that said was the motion was passed the Council didn't come up with some new special uh permit for a mobile home park permit the only special permit that was available in 1972 was for a trailer park somehow when the permit was typed up the typing in the park says mobile home park okay now later on in life that mobile that term at in 1972 nobody cared everyone still cwell Park mobile home parks today but now that word mobile home park is causing me fits and according to the City attorney I am not allowed RVs in it I'm only allowed mobile homes because even though in the current adopting code if you look it'll say current sangela code definition 12.1 as used the term mobile home shall be interpreted to mean to mean and include manufactured home the 30 even the 30% rule they said doesn't apply to me uh you're allowed any RVs in the park so I was totally shut down after paying a premium after getting a a letter from Planning and Zoning prior to buying this park I don't know how you could get a special permit in 1972 for a mobile home park when it wasn't even in the code there were a special the special permit in the code was defined as a trailer park and what I would like you today in case all this other stuff doesn't go through because you can't amend my permit it's agreed to me that there there was a some type of variance or typographical clerical error when the permit was passed that the original permit should have read trailer park

[2:38:59] instead of mobile home park this is another one we're going to have to bring back yeah this this does not apply to what we're dealing with it's going to be separate but it's separate I agree with you totally different thing you've got an excellent point but it does not apply to what we're dealing with today it does not no it does not this this is going to have to be brought back I wanted Chad to to bring this to the front and ask him to be here today so that we can kind of get a little preface and and y'all can understand whenever we're we're asking for future agenda items that we can put this on here for discussion yes and we can do that sir the next meting and I I appreciate you bringing it Forward because it FS you the fallacies of what we're doing here and it's you know words are very important yeah the words are the words and very important just and and if you look at your current zoning code you'll see different definition of Manu Park and mobile home park when you're talking about your water are you willing to bring this back on another waterf definition let's let's bring this back Chad I I don't know how that works y just tell me so I just come back some you did right you did well sir mayor if I could one of the things that's critical is Mr ctis has been working on this from a time that predates the moratorium and uh as we develop a solution we want you know we want it to be clear that uh he has been working on it for that length of time and uh I've lost a lot of business but even if we strike the Senate that Rodney wants to strike it still doesn't solve problem separate his he's an entirely different situation yes yes and no yeah it partially we don't want him to lose his uh grandfathered status simply because it's taken this long for us to untangle the situation that he's in well and along with that it's costing him business because once again he was in the process under the understanding that the city had given him to bring his electrical up to date and improve his Park and was stopped on that because of permits because of the moratorium not no

[2:41:04] not the moratorium that that the city ruled I wasn't allowed trailer park that's right no RVs allowed in my Park the first stop occurred before the moratorium so he has been working on this from a time frame that predates the moratorium we want that to be clear and uh uh as we bring back hopefully bring back a solution uh you know that it will be a tailored solution yes for this this is a special request for a special situation and it'll have to be handled like that but the new code it may or may not work but I'd like to be grandfathered under my old special permit as it was correctly should have been written we can do that or we can bring it to council for consideration okay yes and I think Don will take care of that for you again Don though if we do that last sentence if we strike that out I'm just I'm saying how we I think we should do a motion after the motion that's on the table now and that'll help but I don't think it'll solve problem it it's not going to solve his problem completely it solve but it actually helps it partially yeah it'll help it partially all right let's have further comment clarification Mr Mayor we still on number nine yes sir yes we only have four left after this one that's it state your name you've got three F I'm Howard Schwarz and I represent Sunlake Estates in Stardust um thank you for the opportunity to address you uh you met Yanina marova at the last meeting uh and some of you met Brandon Schwarz let me let me make a statement right now when we get through with number nine we're going to take a lunch break cuz it's already 12:05 yeah so when we get through with number nine we're going to take a lunch break so for those for those of you that are here that are waiting on something after number nine we're not going to get to you until after the lunch break and the executive so no there's no executive there is no executive well well it's going to be about after we break from this after we get through with number nine it's going to be at least 45 minutes before we reconvene so if you're waiting on something after

[2:43:06] nine be advised go ahead sir I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you no problem uh my wife Ellen Lise is here uh and the four of us uh Yanina Brandon Owen Louise and I are the the uh managers of of a family-owned business um uh I've reviewed the uh videos I commend you on uh having that available for us uh and I I studied them very carefully uh there are several Loose Ends uh from the last meeting some of which are unclear and uh and some of which need to be addressed uh at the last council meeting there was a comment from gentleman who stated that any exemption from the ordinance should apply to the current owner only and that upon transfer the new owner would have to comply with the new ordinances we strongly object to this position we believe that it is the city council's intent and it should be the intent that any legal non-conforming designation run with the property to hold otherwise adversely impacts our business for example if we want to sell the park a prospective purchaser can look at our current operations review our books and know what he or she is getting and can come up with a decision of whether the price is fair if a prospective purchaser now has to determine how the new regulations governing Parks will affect the business with the new expenses and other issues he will want to pay pay less for the parks in fact many potential purchases would would walk away from this uncertainty limiting our marketing pool so this alone impacts our business today because it decreases the value of our property uh I would suggest that the

[2:45:09] wording include that uh if an owner of a currently legal non-con forming Park sells the park the future owner is also exempt from any of the new ordinances I don't I don't I can pause here and and see if I think Patrick is going to come up and tell us about that I think they struck that well what I wanted to clarify was when you're talking about conformities that's relates to the zoning ordinance and that does uh it is an aspect of the parcel of the property in question and not the ownership well that may be the intent but I refer you to the proposed section 41608 where it says a person that owns dot dot dot a park in existence on the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the provisions it does not state that any future owner so I just want to make sure that is the intent of the council and if it is and I believe that it is that the ordinance reflect that and the proposed section 41608 does not reflect that so can formity go with property and not with the person yes um danur senior assistant City attorney um in order to violate not having a permit you have to own or operate a park if you're a transferee and you become an owner or operator of a park that existed before the effective date of the ordinance you are exempt under that under that provision because you're a owner or operator as the transferee of a

[2:47:11] park which came into existence before you acquired it and before this ordinance became in into effect so um if you go back to the first section of the ordinance which says that you have to have the operator's permit it's the owner or the operator that's required to have the permit and therefore the exemption applies to the owner or the operator it could be the owner or the operator on the effective date of the ordinance or it could be a later transfer but it's the fact that the park existed on the effective date of the ordinance that that the exemption applies but who it applies to it applies to the current owner with with all so I say the problem you've got all all due respect uh I believe that does not protect us the uh the wording as current does not go to the potential new purchaser and I I think a simple change in the wording to reflect that uh would uh would help us and make make some clarity I think this could be construed and would be construed to say the new owner is not exempt I know that on property if we do a CG on property that CG stays with the property from now on regardless of who owns it so is that the same thing that's going to apply to this that's correct the park the existence of the park doesn't change on a transfer and the owner or the operator of a park that existed before the effective date of the ordinance is exempt from needing to get the permit it could the owner could be Miss could be yourself today next year you might sell it that new person is a o is still an owner of a park that existed prior to the effective date of the

[2:49:13] ordinance and therefore is exempt from that owner requiring required to get an operator's permit well he's just asking for clarifying language that says that well it does say that's exactly what it says I respectfully disagree it does not say that well that I think that couldn't we just solve this problem by just saying a person that owns and permits the operation of or future owner or operator that would that would be fine that would be fine yeah our future operator you know what I'm saying I'm just trying to I'm trying to move this along right I got to go to the restroom but that that's right that's not really a change as a clarification I want to make sure that was the that's the language there a motion in a second on this already no he asked for the other one to be done I I want that last sentence out let's see if we can do it and you've got about a minute left sir we've used most of your time up okay I since this is a a complex issue and everybody has spent thousands of hours and it affects so many people uh I I would appreciate if you can indulge me um you know couple minutes Council can let him go another couple minutes I have no problem do you have more yes um three more two minutes okay the the other issue as pertains to the current Park owners is the issue of Legally non-conforming and my understanding of the the current language and is that current non the current language for legally non-conforming on page two of the 19 it's the effective date of chapter 12 exhibit a zoning ordinance on January 42000 and which does not conform to the

[2:51:16] regulations of the district in which it is situated the issue of 2000 if we allow that to be the definition of legal non-conforming it would leave anything between 2000 and the date of approval of the ordinance in limbo as to whether the parks are actually legally non-conforming now part of what disturbs me is that Yanina two weeks ago brought this issue up specifically and that has not been addressed by the planning staff uh as a as a matter of fact uh um we have reached out to the planning staff uh um for that we would be happy to help with the input and despite what staff says today nobody has ever contacted us and in fact has kind of rejected any input that we've had to offer I uh but I I think that this date is so critical that uh it needs to be drafted properly so that legal non-conforming for the parks is as of right now and not as of 2000 I have other I have other issues with the ordinance but these are the two main ones that absolutely pertain to us and as you said you didn't want to hurt us and I believe these two ordinances hurt us and the existing Park owners I'd be happy to deal with the other issues but uh I know you have some pressure of time and uh uh I could comment on the on other issues if you'd like I believe if we strike that we'll take care of that problem when we run why why did we put 2,000 um I don't believe that that was amended the last time that there was a compreh canive Amendment of the zoning

[2:53:20] ordinance that is the date and so that's what's in the ordinance and it and it hasn't been changed okay can we that's why that's so for clarification purposes we could say today I mean we're not going to go back and change anything that happened since it's all been happened anyways so let's say today's date make it 23 24 okay we can we can put that in there but the reason that it's there the way that it is is because that was not changed okay okay but I don't think it would really affect us if we changed it to today I I think it will be all right and I know the trailer the the park owners are happy if we would change it to today correct it just depends on when the last the definition just come from the last time it was visited that was in 2000 yeah that's why they weren't opposed to it doesn't matter that's why they weren't opposed to it they talked to me beforehand they they we're fine with that data I'm not well the the problem that I see is that anything that happens in the future we say that well the park is legally non-conforming and somebody says well you're really not because you know you might have been at 2000 but anything that you did be between 2000 and today um you know is is not legally conforming did you do something to that Park between then and now well I'm sure we've done a lot we've upgraded all the parks with permits but I I don't want anybody to come later on and say you know you're not truly legally non-conforming because uh you didn't get um approval from Council for uh uh for anything that you did you didn't have to go to council you just went to the permit department well legal counsel there's probably a crew out

[2:55:22] there right now as we speak I'm kidding so we're going to change the date let's move on let's well well we got to vote on Winky's deal first we still we're still voting on on accepting this we do have a motion we do have a second so everything we're talking about we should be talking about pertains to number nine which is the fees and then everything else is no it's not just the fees I mean it's yeah I know okay it's very complex there's more than there's more than fees and it was mentioned that uh there's some opposition to fees uh in a way the whole Prospect is discriminatory because other other operations that are very similar um residential subdivisions are not subject to fees I can show you pictures of Sunlake Estates and um it's indistinguishable for most of the subdivisions residential subdivisions in the community um garden apartment complexes are are uh competition um for for residents they're not subject to any fees uh the same health and safety regulations apply um in a way this makes mobile home parks uh uh second class citizens in the residential Market um so that's that's an issue with the fees themselves uh plus the fact that if if the fees are just for a permit $600 plus $5 of space uh I calculated for the 5 to 10 minutes that it takes to do the registration administratively it comes out to between 10,000 and $20,000 an hour and the council has said that Fe should be a reasonable approximation of the amount of time and money that that the city has

[2:57:24] to spend so both from a discriminatory basis and you know and a financial basis I think the fee situation should be looked at a little bit more carefully before you go into that thank you any further comment state your name you got five minutes and I'm watch I need five mayor I'm Marshall Grace Angelo kway if you look at all of this uh 41608 you'll notice that everything but this last sentence is stricken and that's from our work with Alicia uh Mr Howard and this gentleman and AJ we support it if we just strike the last sentence I have no problem thank you anybody else mayor council I'm Lee brow the Spring Creek Marina and RV park out at Lake nasworthy the reason I would like the last sentence to be stricken is because if you do uh develop more sites I have 12 plus acres out there if I have 12 plus acres the whole idea is to have an RV park on 12 plus acres so I'm not changing the intent of the RV park I'm not changing the intent of what's going on on the in the boundaries the problem I have is if I add sites okay right now if I want to upgrade sites that's not a problem because they're existing I rent them I'm just wanting to upgrade them if I add to the number of sites that I have uh for example at this time I'm I'm I have 84 sites if I uh go by the rulings and the rules that are being uh submitted by the ordinance I'm actually allowed 120 so 36 more sites I'm allowed however the area

[2:59:26] that I would use to try to I'm sorry I'm not going to say expand that I would like to move more sites to is actually closer to a residential area if I have to get an operator's permit I am within that th000 ft therefore I'd have to come back and ask for a variance I'm already already have my boundaries set why can't I just go ahead and continue building my RV park like I want the other thing is the vested part okay I think I'm vested I I'm I'm not getting into legal terms but I feel like I'm vested because I've been there 16 years operating it the same way day in day out trying to increase the uh viability of the park the business plan is to continue to increase and add to the RV park whether it be Park models or whether it be RV sites I'm not changing the business plan I'm not doing anything different the problem is my thousand ft setback having to uh comply with the new permit a problem would be investing why didn't you go ahead and just put it in your plan and go ahead and and start doing it what if it's taken me 16 years to get this far I'm not going to come to the city and start putting in permits six months ago to try to out run a deal because I have time limits on permits the city requires that if I uh am granted a permit I'm only allowed 12 months or so the permit has to be completed so it's really uh a moot point to try to turn in permits try to beat this deadline all I'm asking is that I don't have to uh go for an operator's permit I don't have a problem going with the new ordinances we had a very successful meeting I think last last Wednesday with the planning I don't have a problem with the new rules I just don't feel like I need to have to go for an operator's permit which changes the way I operate my

[3:01:29] business thank you thank you anyone else motion has been made that we accept this as presented it has been seconded we have had Council comment we have had public comment I'm going to call for the vote all for those in favor please say I I all oppose Nay Nay Nay Nay Nays raise your hand one two three four somebody want to make a motion then to clarify this I'd like to make a motion that we accept this ordinance as written with the following exceptions under the let's see the exemption for pre-existing Parks the paragraph should read read a person or future owner that owns and permits the operation of or is in control of of and operates a park in existence on the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the provisions of this article with respect to the operations of such part and then strike the whole last sentence the other change is change the date from 2000 January 4th 2000 January 4th 2000 to today's date April 1st 2014 let me I'm sorry I'll get back to the mic this that actually is not part of item nine um which one's not part of item n the the motion that you're making in terms of the reference um is actually um part of a later item um so actually item nine only speaks to the issue related to fees so actually would only be acting on that that's um so your motion wouldn't that that wouldn't relate to them so we just talked about this whole thing for this whole time no I mean what we were doing was having a broad discussion about all of the items related to all of the issues 9 10 11 and 12 um because they obviously have they they obviously all

[3:03:34] interrelated however the action on the motion on nine would only speak to the issue of the fees if we're going to go ahead and move for a motion so that means we're going to have to do all this all over again on another one well at least we already know what we already know what that motion's going to be also we know what the motion will be when we get there well I don't like the fees so I'm still going to vote against it anybody want to make a motion what what is the motion for number n try it again Rodney I'm not doing a motion on number nine I may the approve item number nine that's written I'll second that let's do it again all those in favor say I I how many said I three all in FA all opposed say nay nay going to have to bring it back again and now it is 12:27 and we're going to call 45 minutes ought to do it shouldn't it we ought to be back here by right at right after 1 we'll be back call call against all of those all right it is 117 and I think it's time to get this get this started again we have already made it to number 10 on our agenda yes we have and number 10 and we're on I think we're just going to do one at a time here so let's let's not do an overview let's just do number 10 and I think hope possibly the discussion we had on number nine will possibly work on the rest of them correct and number nine did the discussion previous discussion did impact subsequent yeah so it'll exp we don't have to do that all over again number 10 says second hearing consideration adopting an ordinance of the city of sanangelo Texas amending the code of ordinances of the city of sanangelo by mending chapter 12 Planning and Development by repealing article 12200 entitled manufactured housing parks in its entirety and amending chapter four entitled building and

[3:05:37] construction by adding a new article four 1600 entitled mobile home park manufactured housing park recreational vehicle park annuals operators permit requiring an annual operator's permit providing for an application and inspection process providing for annual renewal providing for a grace period providing for variance providing for transfer Prov requiring a guest register providing for notice of violation providing for appeal providing for penalty providing dis ordinance shall be cumulative providing a severability clause and providing the publication in the city's official newspaper Patrick Howard you are on Sir okay most of this discussion occurred at the last meeting where there was some change in the fees for operators permits and the like and so um uh subsequently um there has been no real discussion or with the industry owners regarding the spe specifics of the annual oper operators permit so there's not there was no substantive change to this from the previous meeting Council So when you say transfer on there is that transfer of ownership or transfer of when they're staying in there like when a a resident is coming in to stay in there on in this item you're talking about transfer ownership it's it's part of what the the previous discussion about the own the requirements for for uh ownership in terms of the the rights uh and what that means so we're talking about the actual owners of the property okay Charlotte well um I'm just reading this was a 33 vote last time and we're only five members today I mean right now we don't have two I mean is it something that we should move on with or postpone until we have you know at least one more council member I mean we're already going to redo number nine next time cuz we were a 3 three and you know this one well yeah I

[3:07:41] was going to say if that's the case maybe we need to table all these till we get the other two or I don't know what timeline is Patrick for your for yourself we we actually we need to act on 11 and 12 at a minimum okay 11 and 12 at a minimum 11 11 and 12 number 10 I still don't like the annual permit so not to existing Park so I'm I guess I'm still against it well in in looking at and going back and reading you know there's been committees meeting since January 2013 and I certainly don't want to discredit any of the hard work that this committee has been doing and it's been a lot I mean I may not personally agree with one or two things but I think the recommendations and the changes that have been you know is for the benefit of all of s Angelo um so I you know I'm in favor of moving along but I still would like full counil U participation and Mr wardlaw had a water problem he had a water uh water break at his Ranch and the cattle have no water so he had no choice he had to go what about which item specifically addresses the one that Rodney item number 11 okay was it both items under under item number 11 uh well the language that you specifically spoke to uh was item 11 okay yeah how do the park owners feel about number 10 Mr Schwarz where we at number 10 number 10 number 10 thank you um first of all I I have to say that I really enjoyed uh the uh the part of the meeting where we had the uh the girls basketball team more than more than this part of the meeting that now in retrospect that was the highlight that that was the highlight of the meeting uh it doesn't affect us as I understand it but in In

[3:09:44] fairness uh as a uh as an asset class if you're not having uh fees for uh residential communities if you're not having it for apartment complexes it singles out uh manufactured housing developments as a second class citizens um and in a little bit it it does affect us because we provide affordable housing and any additional costs have to be borne by somebody and um uh it's uh it it really it's it's not a major major thing but in a way it is discriminatory that you are singling out for these kinds of fees uh new manufacturing Parks now as as I've stated to some of you I doubt if there's going to be a new one because of the economics uh around the country that nobody's building new parks but I I think that you really ought to consider whether you should single out uh mobile home parks and RV parks for uh for special fees when it doesn't apply to other businesses in town thank you I agree with you Charlotte well I just wanted to clarify something that uh a few years ago and probably you and Johnny and myself are aware of that we were looking at fees and no fees at the entire city in the various departments and stuff uh that we were not charging for so we had been putting fees in in various places to cover the expenses of U the staff in their work and there's legal fees that go into all of this research the planning department the AR engineers and stuff that is involved and if you're a citizen out there and you're having to get these opinions rendered from professionals you pay a fee and the city was literally giving away all of these services and this time and no other place can you go not even another city and there is not a charge for the fees I mean the staff's time there's a certain amount of it because you're a

[3:11:47] City and it's done but that's why in the when things started coming up and moving along and trying to find areas that is income to the city and not just a burden fees were put in place and there was a really I don't didn't bring it with me today uh but um Michael I believe your department prepared a graft of the various you know planning engineering the various specialist you know that and the T amount of time that is spent on all of these things and that's how we came up with the fee so that's I just wanted to clarify that we're not picking on the manufactured agency the fees were in nine though we've already voted on that 3 to3 what we're talking about 10 is an annual operator's permit I understand that that's still you know a fee that is is growing that's the fee for and you know Charlotte I agree with you up to a point the the thing about it is you you also have to get services for taxes and and you know here again we're imposing something that they aren't asking for and we're charging them for it and and I have a problem with that uh you know I don't I don't think as a city that we should should say okay you have to do this and you have to pay us for doing it so I mean that's that's where my problem comes in have no problem if they need an electrical inspection paying for it but just for us to to go out there and force an inspection on them and then force them to pay for it that makes no sense to me we don't do it to the apartment buildings we don't do it to anyone else why would we do it to them if I may I think the the concern of the committee was the enforcement and I think that the idea was if in fact we are to likely um follow through on in ensuring compliance then there needed to be some sort of annual um revalidation of what actually is on the ground and so that's I believe the

[3:13:50] impetus for why this uh came about someone W make a motion we'll vote on this I'm going to vote against it because I don't think it's fair to single these people out but I'm waiting I I move that that uh uh we not charge any any fees and you know here again um kind of along those same lines I don't think they need annual inspections I don't either I mean I I think we have enforcement in place for that they're inspected every time they put an electric they're inspected every time they do anything and that's the way it ought to be but there's no reason to inspect them andily if they don't have any changes right bur if somebody thinks there's something wrong they can report it to the city in code code officers can go out and check on a on a on a problem if something's reported we don't charge anybody else an annual fee and make an annual inspection why should we do it to them that's my problem I mean there's no we don't do it to the motels and the hotels in town or the apartments this item 10 item 10 second hear did you finish your motion your I thought I was you I meant to maybe not um mayor if I may yes sir I think the permit and the inspection that went with it was the committee's attempt to try to address what appeared to be a concern on Council uh uh about the condition of parks and uh one of the things they were clear on is let's don't make rules and then have no way to uh determine whether anybody's following them so that was their part to add some teeth or some enforcement capability to rules that you might pass that was simply their effort to be sure that what you wanted happen wanted to happen was actually happening it could that that's that's an awful broad stroke though I can think of some apartment buildings in town that you could apply that same rule T you're you're right and and they pointed that out to us that that there were more areas that could use additional

[3:15:54] resources to assist with uh making sure that rules were being followed and uh but this was their attempt to satisfy your desire to make sure rules were followed finish your motion Don let's vote on this um move against accepting item 10 and ordinance uh amending the code of ordinances for chapter 12 somebody want to say second that motion we do have a motion we do have a second uh any further Council discussion do I have anything else from the public if if we vote this down are we going to be able to revote on this because I'm for this but not with the fees not under his motion I know his motion you're just saying to do away with it okay let me let me try that you know what I'm saying I'm trying to yeah I hadn't thought about that I'm for the ordinance and the way it's written but I I'm with you on the fees I don't like why would why we need it why why are you for the motion we don't do it to anyone else in town so why would we single mobile home parks out for all these inspections annually I'm not for the fees or the inspections but there's other there's other language that's written in there well I don't guess I see it then yeah they have to apply for a new permit they're going to have to I mean for a new existing site they're going to have to apply and we're going to have to look at that existing site and make sure that it's correct I mean that I am for but the annual deal well it's what it say is an annual operator's permit right application and inspection annual renewal don't providing for variance providing for transfer requiring a guest register providing for notice of violation uh providing the ordinance shall be cumula I mean everything is just an addition an addon well the requirement for a guest register I believe is in place at this time so we can see how many days they're staying and that am I not correct there that would be part of the the the requirement for the operator's permit no that's on here but I think at this time we even do that you have to have a guest register at a park is that right Marshall it's not a current requirement

[3:18:00] of the I I could have swore that it was I thought I had read that that it wasn't requir all right let me let me adjust my motion I uh I move that we do away with permits and fees for existing Parks how about the annual inspection and annual inspections and anything else that we need to throw out of there right okay and the exception would be the annual operator's permit the fee for the permit and the annual inspection inspections yes Park owners can we live with it if we take those three out if we bring back the girls basketball team that was still a highlight do I need to pull my second and then you want to resc the new motion yeah I'll just okay we do have a second and we do have a motion to adopt it with the exception of the permit with the exception of the fees with the exception of the yearly annual inspection is that right Don yes sir I'm sorry for clarity are you saying that the annual operators permit would be would be removed because that's the essence of the of number 10 is the actual annual operators permit with those specific requirements in exis yes they're they're operating why do they need a permit they've been operating why do they need to be inspected every year for existing you're just putting burdens on an existing on an existing business that before we vote on this they did not have there's no reason to burden them yeah well I think there's an important distinction this is for existing is that correct yes but the requ if we have a new then requirements would these requirements would be in place for new parks but not for existing is that what you're saying

[3:20:02] no just trying to read and just for clarification as well we the concern was having a requirement again similar to what the concern was for number 11 is that we were making a requirement for a business and not uh for an existing maybe a potential new business and not for an existing business um so in effect um I think we have legal concerns about the idea of requiring an operator's permit for a new business when an existing business of the same type would be in operation without the requirement for a permit so that's that's why it remains as it is but there's nothing in here that excludes existing Parks this is a blanket ordinance nothing is this does not apply to existing and it would and it would in fact apply to existing Parks good I like your motion Don okay I was just reading the red down here said that what we did we directed staff to work with Lee Brown from Spring Creek amena Marina to modify definitions outlined in the proposed and we generally approved uh in consensus eliminating the proposed fee Associated for transfer of new parks modified the proposed fees associated with the annual operating permit for new parks or expansion of existing Parks outside the original footprint from 425 to th000 number three modifying the prop proposed fee you're back on number nine Charlotte no I'm I'm reading what's attached to it reading the staff report and and those those address 9 through 12 um but 10 10 is annual operating permit nothing in there about fees except for the application inspection process and the fee for that okay yes sir if I may for clarity sake I'm uncertain about Mr um vardan's motion can we get clarity on whether that is just for existing Parks

[3:22:06] uh or uh in deference to legal's opinion that the rules should be the same let's let's do away with all of it yeah I agree yes the new par is that clear yeah it's clear to me I'm I'm having trouble keeping up on what the impact is to the ordinance so you may have to help us with that but at least we've got consistency now right right there was some some again with number 10 and 11 some desire to apply the standards only to um new parks again the legal concern was that it needed to be applied across the board and so therefore they remain as proposed to apply to both new and existing Parks well since we don't we don't want it in existing if we can't have it in existing and new then do away with it Patrick is there a 20 words or less summary you can give us about what the essence of 10 11 is so that we all can kind of get on the same page or 25 words how about 30 30 would work well and in fact again my understanding from the committee was there was a desire obviously to put in place uh some internal controls and with that the you'd have the requisite ability to do that through the annual operators permit process um and so what's before you is language suggesting how that would go be how would that be carried out um that's essentially what is the essence of number 10 and we've had a long discussion about the language and number 11 about the requirement for um um you know as far as exemptions are concerned and I think that there's probably Clarity on that but as it relates to number 10 the concern again was providing a requirement that did not apply um to both new and existing and again that's why it remains as it is well with this motion that'll take care of that Marshall do you have a comment

[3:24:10] okay give you about 3 minutes then we going to take a vote I just I just need a little Clarity this passage is up here is this in in reference to number 10 no it's 11 that's 11 okay so that's not even in this one okay but if it gets down to this one and this is adopted that is in the per ordinance which is the one under consideration section 16 48 can't hear you Dan s uh senior assistant City attorney um I believe if you can you scroll this down to the top of the section well my question is because you're on you're on the permit ordinance does it remove us from the total ordinance there it is 41608 is the permit ordinance so what you're talking about on applying to existing Parks only with what's proposed only expansion would apply these rules to an existing Park you're saying that you want to delete the expansion so then existing parks would not be subject to the permit for their current use or for any expansion the way the way they look I don't believe I have ever seen a more convoluted set of ordinances of these no it's I can't I can't say that enough this is so convoluted no so so that that paragraph does apply to number 10 it does apply to number 10 uh this section four or this uh 416 article 4600 right is the operating uh permit ordinance it's not zoning not subing yeah it's not zoning it's not subdividing you have two separate ordinances for that M fees that are

[3:26:14] imposed in this ordinance are in the fees schedule so it is linked to the to the fee ordinance that that you voted on that's all it is but that that's um it's independent all on its own it's just a permit for operation of any of these Parks it would exempt existing parks and it would also exempt those Parks now for expansion because you've taken that sentence out well we're about to we haven't done it yet okay but if you vote on it the way that you uh that you've stated that that taken out then that would exempt existing Parks even for future expansion like Mr Brown had indicated other regular permits that they might need for electric or sewer they would still have to get but they wouldn't they wouldn't come under this operating permit they would not need to get the operating permit even if they expand can I make a suggestion that's what I was headed for why don't we lump 10 11 together because we've already done nine and then do the reading like I said changing that say we accept those ordinances as written and presented except for we take out the line there we change the date over there and that and and take out the fees for all existing and new but then you still have to have the permit well we want them to have a permit at the very beginning I mean that's just but it's not an annual operating we don't want them we don't want them to have that I we need to follow through on Don's motion clear it up and then we can straighten it up in 11 yeah but I want to make sure we don't vote on 10 and we pass by without saying that striking that one sentence out we can we can strike that we can strike that in 11 it will be struck in my motion yeah I think it will be I think it's all they're all together is the problem I want to clarify what I'm reading what I studied on page 13 of 19 which you're taking the exemption of pre-existing parks and Patrick please tell me if I'm reading it

[3:28:17] wrong I'm understanding that everything that a line has drawn through has been stricken and what it says is a person that owns and per owns and permits the operation of or is in control of and operates a park in existence on the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the provisions of this article with respect to the operation of such Park this exemption shall not apply with respect to the operation of a park developed or EXP Ed after the effective date of this ordinance am I on the right page that's correct and I stand corrected we we um as as been clarified this this section does apply to 10 and not to 11 the similar language in the in section of the subdivision ordinance that speaks to um similarly what we discussed here so this in fact is the area that we need to be addressing so the idea uh that was discussed about the removal of language about exemptions um would be discussed at this time soot so your motion leave your motion the way it was and then add what what I read earlier which was just add the a person that owns or future owner and permits the operation of or is in control of and operates a park in the existence of the on the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the provisions of this article with with respect to the operation of such park period period you want to add that to what you've already before yes mayor before he amends his motion strike all the last can we listen to what candy has to add real quick it's worked on the committee yes we do have a motion from Don he has amended it to include the language that Rodney brought forward do you want to second that amended motion yes well now we'll listen to candy the blind leading the blind and don't

[3:30:19] make this complicated I'm going to uncomplicate it for you mayor candy P I was on the committee for um this what you think is a complicated uh uh document and it's really not correct me if I'm wrong but um at your last meeting you made a motion to exempt existing Parks from everything this was about new yeah brand new so that's why all this is stricken because we took it out you took out the fees you said everything you took out by exempting ex exempting uh from this ordinance existing Parks correct me if I'm wrong you took out fees you took out all the requirements of new you took out all the requirements of anything they would have to do as far as uh adding to or expanding they don't go this is all for brand new and so if you look at it like that the motion that Don's making is irrelevant it doesn't go with what's going on right now this is for new because you've already taken care of existing parks that would be my comments the problem is is our agenda item today and the way the agenda is written is it not already you've got it all off of there and this is all the existing if you read on page 12 12 if you start at the top mayor it says exemptions for existing Parks all of that has been stricken all down to that one sentence so it's not about existing Parks it's about new and that's the problem it is not on our agenda that way the agenda item does not say that the agenda item does not differentiate between existing and new I read all number 10 it says nothing about existing or new so we've got one set of rules over here here and we got another set of rules on the agenda and all we're trying to do is straighten this agenda item up because this is what has been

[3:32:22] read into public into public we have got to make it we have got to make this agenda item work and that last that that last sentence though candy we won off there the park owners talked I understand I'm not I'm not talking about that last sentence I'm just talking about that whole that's the only thing left um but the only thing I would say to that about being on the agenda um if you want to call it in correctly um if it doesn't differentiate between existing and new it should have because I believe that you took care of exempting existing Parks last time thank you Candy do you need any help in explaining no I just need some good wording in my agenda I need wording on the agenda to meet to meet what the draft says and it does right it does because it's about that subject matter in the open meetings act requires us to post notice of the subject matter and so indeed we could put more descriptive words as you wish into the I think Don's take care of it but um it is the substance which um carries the day we without a motion with that a second I'm going to call for the vote if there's not any further comment from the public every know what the motion did we put the date in there also that today's date do you want that in here no yes add the date April 1 214 restate the motion okay just for clarification let's state it one more time the way we want it Don and uh Rodney might have to work together on this okay after all these changes this is what I have and please U let me know if I did not get this right I put motion to adopt the ordinance as presented with the exception of deleting permit fees and annual inspection on Park developments amending page 13 and9

[3:34:25] deleting that last sentence this exemption and I just quoted it and changing the date and it future owner it said that first that line it says a person that owns and future owner and I just put that in quotes that will be St thank you okay is that correct that correct sounds I'm good you still you still with it Johnny on your second okay you understand it Charlie M well there's only one of us up here that doesn't understand it that'd be me let's call for the vote all in favor please say I I any oppose Nay put a 5 on it let's move on to number 11 which is the first public hearing consideration of introducing an ordinance City s Angelo meing the code of ordinances City s Angelo meting chapter 12 Exhibit C Land Development subdivision ordinance number one amending chapter 3 entitled definations by redefining certain terms terms and defining newly added terms number two amending chapter 4 entitle classification of subdivisions by amending chapter two entitle minor subdivisions or resubdivision adding a provision for certain subdivisions laying out spaces for manufactured housing Parks mobile home parks recreational vehicle parts number three amending chapter five entitled procedural requirements for processing subdivision section three entitled the stages of development review by restating subp Part B minor subdivisions to add a process for plat approval of manufactured housing manufactured housing Park mobile home park recreational vehicle park spaces and number four amending chapter nine entitled subdivision design policies section one entitle Lots by restating paragraph one zoning requirements subpart B lot Dimensions amending section three entitled streets and Roads subpart a general design guidelines restating paragraph one Public Access providing for access to park spaces from internal streets and adding a new paragraph 7 entitled manufactured home park mobile home park recreational vehicle park development providing Paving standards and prohibiting primary access from certain streets and amending section8 entitled street name Signs by adding provision for Street signage on

[3:36:28] internal subdivision streets providing a severability clause providing for an effective date brother Howard okay well this is where we probably had most of the feedback from the industry professionals about in reference to size of spaces terminology and the like so they may want to comment on such but I think that what we've provided to you is a representation of what they felt like was appropriate in terms of language related to the again the layout of spaces and some of the terms that we had previously been using that's it in in summary Council I'm not I guess we're back to you Rodney you comfortable with it I guess so park owners yall comfortable with this I'll move to uh approve as presenting I'll second that any other comment Council Public public if I have a public yes sir you have public mayor council I'm Lee Brown the Spring Creek Marina in RV park I just do uh want to tell you that we did meet last Wednesday March 26th with u uh Patrick Al with permits AJ uh Dan Lisa and U we also had two representatives from KOA we had the Mike ainson the senior Business Development consultant and Park Model business director from Billings Montana we had Marshall gray and myself sitting all at the round table uh we had good feedback on both sides anything that we objected to they wanted to know how the language would make us happy uh they fed

[3:38:32] back on how language should be done legally and what have you and when we left the table as far as I'm concerned items 11 and 12 were uh satisfactory when we left uh the only things I I found was maybe some typographical errors yesterday but I pointed that out but as far as philosophical and operation and oh the thing I did want toh point out Mike Atkinson after the meeting uh has experience of meeting with councils and and City governments all over the nation and he said he has never met with a city staff that was more cooperative and he was very compliment on on the meeting that we had Wednesday so thank you if you boys are happy with it I'm happy with it that's what we wanted to hear [Music] yes Howard Schwarz I just want to mention that um uh in any future um things that affect mobile home parks that that we be included but I also want to recommend encourage you to uh direct the planning staff to work more closely with the Texas manufactured housing assoc Association the tmha and especially with DJ Pendleton the executive director who is a very knowledgeable attorney he's very easy to work with and he has worked with many cities on ordinances and I just want to uh um direct your attention to this thank you thank you sir any further public comment on this I'm going to call for the vote by uh motion has been made Charlotte that we accepted is written Johnny has seconded this all in favor please say I I any oppose Nay put a 5 on that number 12 first public hearing consideration of introducing an ordinance City s Angelo amending the code of ordinance in City s Angelo amending chapter 12 exhibit a zoning and ORD by number one amending chapter 3 amending article three use regulations Section 310 use table restating that part of the use table designated

[3:40:35] residential use categories group living number two amending article three use regulations Section 313 residential use category subpart a group leting expand in the definition of group living number three amending article four specific use standards by redesignating chapter 407 as campground RV parks establish the standards for the use and development of Campground Recreational Vehicle Parks number four renumbering sections 407 is 408 and renumbering sections 408 through 425 and sections 409 through 426 respectively number five amending article four specific use standards section 415 manufactured housing Park standards restating manufactured housing Park standards number six amending Article 5 General development standards section 501 residential district standards subpart a residential district regulations modifying lot size and density requirements number seven amending Article 5 General development standards section 509 fences subp Part B height standards for required privacy fences part three maximum height and required front yards adding exceptions for MHP and MHS zoning districts and special use campground RV parks number eight amending article 8 definition section 804 Define Parks adding definitions providing accumulative Clause providing C barity Clause providing an effective date brother Howard okay as part of the same discussion we added additional language as as the caption read about some of the clarifications that need to be made the other thing I would mention is we obviously added a def definition for Workforce housing and as it was also mentioned the the issue of adding group group living and re that in the use Matrix so that's essentially um the sum of what occur in number 12 number Council give me something I move that we accept the ordinance written second got a motion got a second do I have anything from the public you boys happy with

[3:42:38] this brown do have a motion or do have a second if I have no public comment I'm going to call for the vote uh the motion is to accept it as presented has been seconded all in favor please say I I any oppose nay drop a 5 on that one please and now we are at number 13 which is the first public hearing consideration of introducing an ordinance amending chapter 12 exhibit a owning in ordinance of the con of ordinance in city of St Angelo Z1 1403 BP surface Solutions LLC an ordinance amending chapter 12 exhibit a of the code of ordinance city of s Angelo Texas which said exhibit a of chapter 12 adopts zoning regulations use District zoning map in accordance with the comprehensive plan by changing the zoning classification the following properties to wit un addressed tracks located approximately 95t west of the intersection of South chadburn and FM 765 more specifically being 71156 Acres out of land comprised a 0.320 acre out of the CF Potter survey 160 abstract number 7278 and 7 0.836 Acres out of the lp more survey 169 and 1/2 abstract number 1637 is Southwest s Angelo changing the zoning classification from r& ranching Estates to light manufacturing ml District providing for severability providing a penalty brother Howard okay so I'm going to be very brief the applicant is requesting uh light manufacturing for the entire tract of land however the vision plan recommendation splits that recommendation for partly commercial and partly ML and that was the recommendation of Staff as well however Planning Commission did recommend uh offer a recommendation that was consistent with the applicant's recommendation of in of of resoning the entire parcel to ml okay is that yours Rodney or Johnny no it's it's yours it's not mine well I went out there it's not mine but I went

[3:44:43] out there and and my comment is going to be totally opposite of my objection earlier my objection earlier is because single family residential was involved and in this area out here I totally agree with with the change that it it fits the area much better than Ranch and Estates Rodney you want to you want to go one way or another on this yeah I first of all I moved to accept the the zone change as written second but my you know my objection not objection but my comments on this is that it was r& and it is a buffer and there are houses right across the street down the by that intersection there they're the same distance away actually they're closer to it than what that will be but I think that this Zone chain should go through this does fit in with what there is there is enough buffer there across the street and that's farming that's all kind of where you see that half circle that's all farming land right there so we have no idea that farming land could end up being housing also but at this time I think that we should approve this motion to approve and you second it any comments from the uh public on this any further comment from Council motion has been made do we approve this as presented all in favor please say I I any oppose Nay put a 5 on that one number 14 first public hearing consideration of the do introducing an ordinance amending chapter 12 pertaining to prohibiting separate utility meters for net accessory Apartments an ordinance amending chapter 12 exhibit a zoning Ord of the code of ORD of City s Angelo Texas Article 4 specific use standard section 401 accessory apartments by deleting subsection 41.6 prohibiting separate utility meters for accessible units and the primary residents providing for severability and providing for an active dat effective date brother Howard okay and this was uh uh in responsed to respon in response to directive given by city council to go back and modify language to allow for uh

[3:46:46] an additional or more than one meter um as been previously stated so essentially the language propos in effect does that long overdue anybody want to make a motion that was Marty's deal Marty's deal yes move to approve as presented and let all those people know that have called me that we didn't this was done years ago and we're just undoing it so we fixed it anybody want to second that I'll second that we do have a motion we do have a second and this is something that is far far overdue and uh keep looking sir at your different ordinances because you got a lot more in the in the books that also need to be fixed as well motion has been made it has been seconded do I have anything from the public anything else from councel motion has been made to accept is presented all in favor please say I I any oppose nay drop a five on that one number 15 public hearing consideration adopting a resolution authorizing the adoption for the two 14 219 Capital Improvement plan for the city of St Angelo sorry I'd have to let you go Patrick you've been good but Morgan has now repl enjoyed your company busy day yes ma'am good afternoon Council what we have before you here today is uh the capital Improvement plan we've talked about it at length and so before you today is a resolution adopting that plan and putting into effect so that we can consider it during next year's budget cycle um it was slotted for uh March 18th and so we're appreciative for your time today as we move forward with that and before you is the calendar we we talked about it at length on March 6th and so I I have that prepared today if it's your pleasure uh but other than that the only update I have is that we did get a couple more online submissions uh consistent with other items we' presented to you at our past meeting so uh items for Fort Concho and for uh water supply uh investment so uh nothing new to report uh 74 projects uh ated for uh this Pro this plan uh in excess of $311

[3:48:50] million now we're already working on water supply but you're adding for count officers quarter number one to the CIP plan it was already in there there's just an online support in in favor of it yes sir anybody want to move on this motion to approve is presented I'll second I have a quick question yes sir so we have the the online submission option there on our website correct and we had six submissions as of last I talk to about two more I can't believe we just have a total of eight I mean and we've actually left it open so that throughout the budget cycle if we do have additional items come in we want to be able to report those to you and make it easy for folks to to chime in and have their voice heard did you guys and I don't get to watch channel 17 all the time but did you guys at least publicize or you know the little spills that Anthony does are are great so I mean do you advertise it that way that hey we need your input yes sir we've talked about it at length we also not only on satv but Al every time we had an opportunity at at klst at kasan um on the radio at every local radio station and in uh print at San Angelo at the standard times is it on the city Facebook page yes sir it is golly I can't believe yeah that's it's sad yeah eight people public comment Council comment motion has been made to accept as presented all in favor please say I I any oppose Nay put a 5 on that one thank you number 16 in consideration approving the Working On Wellness wow program with extra vacation days is participation incentives Lisa Marley good afternoon mayor and Council um as you remember um back in 2011 we started a wellness program with our employees in an effort to uh curb our self-insurance costs and in January of this year Cheryl fluger from Community presented to you the status of our most recent Health R screenings which happened in October and no November of 2013 um we had great participation uh you know back in 2011 we had a pretty good group of people that just refus to

[3:50:53] do it um in 2013 um 99% of our employees participated in the health risk screenings so we're very pleased that that participation has been at such a great level um if you remember from Cheryl's presentation however we have a a great number of folks that have a lot of um areas they need to improve on we've got 955 employees that need to um have better nutrition habits we've got 651 employees that need to work on their weight management and 600 604 employees that need to better control their high blood pressure so the wellness coordinators from our Clinic put together this WOW program working on Wellness where we would um give points to employees for participating in different events that we would have throughout the year so if you follow me it's you know we got them to do this screening once a year now we want to try to keep them participating year long in many events that we offer so um the um group from the clinic as well as um HR put together the list of those different types of activities where we could award points and we've come up with um a structure that is is um I guess you would say it would pass the rulle as far as not discriminating against people with disabilities they can they can participate in this no matter what they're um status and they can still get enough points to achieve the goals of either 400 points to receive one extra day of vacation per year or 700 points total to receive two days of vacation extra per year so that is our proposal um and we're asking Council to uh give us approval to move forward with this Council how many extra days do we get looks to me like they have an extra vacation day and we're trying to keep them on a good di that

[3:52:55] they're just going to take off and drink beer and eat chips and it would be counterproductive well certainly we don't control what they do on vacation well I've got a couple of questions one have you uh have you calculated how much this will cost versus how much it will benefit us on the on the other side um there isn't any way to really put together what it would cost us what what would cost us is a loss of productivity for those two days of vacation well it basically cost you that employees amount for one day exactly exactly you also have to keep in mind you have to keep in mind as well as far as the loss of productivity when a an employee is not healthy and they're missing because they're out sick and so forth then productivity comes into play of course you know so again uh that's uh that's what we're trying to move forward is make sure that we do have the productivity of the step numbers that's true so once again does the the benefit monetarily come back are we getting paid for what we're giving out well if we give if the employees are to achieve the 400 points they have satisfied a lot of different activities throughout the year which we will hope will transfer over to some sort of a savings in our insurance plan um it's it's difficult to gauge what that would be um there are no employees you know we have 15% of our employees um who or I'm sorry 16% which are in the excellent range when it comes to factoring all of the Biometrics and they those 16% of the folks will still have to work very hard to achieve those 400 points it's not a gimme it's it's very difficult to you have to go out of your way to compete in these things well and that was my next point if if I'm already there and I'm doing good what is my incentive to get a day off if I'm in the in the percentile that's woo woo well you know you're going to want to maintain that so do you get a is can you earn the 400 points the way I read it I didn't see anything in there

[3:54:57] or if I'm already in the good range that I can earn the 400 points oh absolutely it'll be open to all employees that are in the program you know that are active employees and so um there's nobody in that excellent range or in the good range that automatically qualifies with 400 points right off the bat just by walking through the door they're going to have to participate even those people that are in the ex in the excellent if they want to try to get a day off okay and then once again on our retirees most of our insurance money goes toward the retirees what are we doing to try to help them most of our insurance doesn't necessarily go to the retirees I would argue that point with you but um there is not a program that we can force them to participate in that we've discovered at this point um they're our insurance and that's just part of the deal yeah but Force absolutely incentivized perhaps I mean you know some some people would take advantage of some of these programs if they were just knowledgeable of it and once again like we talked about last time if you get the word out anything beats nothing and I think it would help well I was going to wait until a future meeting to report this but um we did get the um database completed just last week of all the retirees that we've talked about doing um I've spoken with it and with um public information we're going to add a link on our our website for retirees and that's where we're going to download all the data that's important to them they're certainly welcome to come out and participate in anything because they can use the clinic and these are all done through the clinic so certainly if they wanted to we just don't have a way to make it mandatory for a retiree yeah so there's no incentive that I can offer to them yeah I understand I move for approval as presented second my comment I would think that the benefit of this wellness program would be its own reward and I think it was two years ago that Charlotte asked for an additional

[3:56:59] holiday I believe it was Veterans Day and it was granted and approved for all city employees that's correct uh I don't think anybody gets more holidays except maybe the Banks County the county state and the state and the city I mean they already get far far more holidays per year than anyone else that's working in the in the public with the exception of the banks uh to me I'm not in favor of it uh public comment on this anything anything for many rest Council motion has been made that we accept this as presented it has been seconded all in favor please say I I I guess there's just one nay then let's move on number 17 first thank you Lisa first public hearing consideration of introducing an ordinance am meting chapter 11 pertaining to City s Angelo water conservation plan and ordinance of the city of s Angelo Texas adopting a revised water conservation plan for the city of s Angelo Texas entitled the city of s Angelo water conservation plan dated March 2214 said revised plan to replace the city of s Angelo water conservation plan dated March 229 in its entirety amending section 11 entitled utilities and solid waste more particularly by amending article 11200 entitled water conservation and draft contingency plan section 11202 entitled water conservation measures to reflect under said section to March 20 214 city of s Angelo water conservation plan adopted by the S Angelo city council here too providing for severability providing for an effective date of the ordinance you're not Ricky Dixon I'm not he delegated it s back there take officer well good afternoon mayor and City uh Council members today what we have before you is a uh update to the city's water conservation plan and specifically what we're talking about is information that the Texas water development board requires us to put together um what what they require us to do is to put together a water

[3:59:02] conservation plan and to update that every 5 years and this plan is required for um all public entities that provide potable water service to 3,300 connections or more uh all public entities that receive $500,000 in financial assistance and um and also to be eligible for the water development board's revolving fund program so we would like to you know maintain that eligibility to the fund and what we put together is in this 100 page document that we provided for you is the update to the plan as as you read it was last updated in 2009 and what you'll find in this plan is information about our water sources um you'll find information about uh projects that pertain particularly to water conservation uh or new water sources you'll find information about potential water conservation projects you'll find the uh user demand profile for our our different categories of users like residential commercial industrial and things of this nature so it it does contain a a lot of good information about the basically the background for our water system so with that we would like to uh obtain your approval to amend the um the ordinance charte I am all for uh participating in in renewing and updating our 5-year you know plan with the St to be eligible but in trying to do my homework on this item I could not find uh a March 2nd 2009 council meeting that this subject was on the agenda the meeting was actually on March 3rd 2009 and I still didn't find anything on the agenda now I've read a lot of stuff in the last several days a lot of stuff so I I could be mistaken

[4:01:06] but it it bothered me and then I could not find anything to reflect under said section the March 20th 2014 that the council has agreed on that set of scenarios so please help me out here to understand the agenda item those are the dates that the uh water conservation plan was updated it's not not the date that the uh item was brought before Council uh that that's the date of the the plan itself the well how can I refer to the plan if it's it's the date's not in there for me to find it we we attached the plan to the uh memo could not open that okay1 PES 91 Pages yes who put that together uh that was put together mainly by Tony Fox wow she did a good job yes there's a lot of good information in there lot a lot of hard work but I had to go this is a uh amendment of course to the ordinance requires two readings and um somebody want to make a motion one way or the other I'll make a motion to approve this as presented I only got to go through Page 90 so I'm okay with it we'll we'll vote on against this again the second time next meeting yes but I would like to have like I said I couldn't open the pages and I don't I couldn't open I couldn't open anything till I got here today I can't open it now so I had tried today it's open I got mine open mine's not well I plan if we can change this next meeting if if there's a problem that we see so I'll second okay I do have a motion I do have a second that we approve this this is the first reading so Charlotte Johnny y'all and myself we find anything in here we don't like scream next time

[4:03:08] we'll take care of it next time Mo uh public motion's been made seconded all in favor please say I I nay the same put uh six put a 5 on that one number 18 was 19 we've done 18 number 19 read off my agenda instead of the machine number 19 first public hearing consideration of introducing an ordinance amending appendix a pertaining to Lake nasworthy law lease fees an ordinance amending appendix a section article 6 section 6 100 entitled Lake nesworthy lot lease fees of the code of ordinances of the city of s Angelo Texas by repealing and restating set article in its entirety provide for Lake nasworthy and South cono River leas fees providing for severability providing for an effective date Cindy priest um good afternoon Council this item is being brought back to you for consideration it was first presented on March 4th and at that time you tabled the item pending sorry um pending additional information and as as a reminder the amendment contains four major changes um the first change to appendix day of the fee schedule is to incorporate the recreational grazing and agricultural yearly lease fees into this section of the fee schedule the second change um staff is requesting is a minimal increase in the recreational grazing and agricultural yearly lease fees as you recall these lease fees have not been adjusted in more than 30 years excuse me the third major change is the amended ordinance pertains to the lake nasworthy residential yearly lease fees based on appraised market value effective January 1st 2017 to reduce the impact of the residential rent escalation the amended ordinance provides that the annual rent be calculated based on the appraised market value of the land multiplied by a factor of 0.015% this is a change from the current

[4:05:15] multiplication factor of 0.08 in the March meeting you requested information on the appraised market value specifically you asked if the appraisal will contain a reduction based on the number of years remaining on the lease no the appraisal will not include a reduction the appraisal will be full market value with no reductions the final Amendment um to the ordinance provides that at no time shall annual residential rent based on appraised market value be less than $700 this is to offset the cost of managing approximately 21 residential leases and to include which includes the billing the transfer of leases new leases and the cost of appraisals and at this time I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have motion to approve is presented second I know this is your area yeah one thing I know this is your area Rodney so what are your thoughts well one thing we want to explain to the public and and we went over this a good bit in the in the past 6 months maybe it first came up well I mean just when I since I've been here but um there kind of was a ticking bomb out there 2017 on these leases when they went to to market value and there was a bunch of them that were going to go and they were the a previous city council had put on uh that was 1980 when was that four at least 1984 I think so said that they were going to go to 8% of their value 2001 2001 we said that in 2001 we said that you're going to go to 8% of their value in 2017 when their time was up so let's just do an example and I'm just doing this kind of show all all the lake residents out there on a $100,000 house that means that you were going to pay $8,000 a year on on for the lease of that property correct right so what we did was after a lot of discussion and a b a bunch of numbers being thrown back and forth we went to a 1.5 deal so on an $8,000 or on a $100,000 house you're going to pay

[4:07:20] $1,500 for the lease of that property correct so there is a huge difference between $88,000 a year and $1,500 a year and and their yearly lease fees are averaging probably $700 a year so they were going from $700 a year to $8,000 yeah that that's right 700 to 8,000 it was a huge jump in there's a lot of retirees out there that there's no way they would have been able to handle this I realize going up to 1.5 is a is a big jump for some of them but it's not near what it could have been and what and it and the 8% deal should have never been put on there I don't I I think that the the city council at the time thought everybody's going to own their land before 2017 and we won't this just won't come up it will be an easy deal because everybody will have purchased by then well you know hindsight's 2020 of course most of those people probably would have liked to have bought it by now but the prices keep going going up and now it just makes it harder and harder for some of them to buy and a lot of retirees just can't do it they just don't have the income to to go down and purchase their house so I I think this is a good deal I'm totally in favor of it uh I think this is also a good deal for the city of St Angelo not just the residents out there but it's a fair deal for us as a city to collect fees on these properties Charlie I I just want to add that I'm not defending prior councils uh I I truly in my heart of hearts believe that this rate the old rate was set at a time when um 30-year fixed Finance rates were in the 12 to 16% range so the eight sounded very very attractive and times change things change and this was brought to our attention by a young lady her mother that lives out there and Paul Alexander and I worked on it together with Cindy and and legal and it's been long incoming to work out so happy ending I think public comment on this motion has been made that we accept it as presented it has been seconded all in

[4:09:23] favor please say I I any oppos Nay put 5 on that one number 20 consideration possible actions on matters discussed in executive Clos session if needed there were no items in executive so this one is a moot point number 21 is announcement and cons consideration of future agenda items anybody have anything yes yes okay Don um I'd like to put uh Chad County um yes RV part problem I don't know exactly how I want to put that but something in there so that we can take a look and see if we can help him or not help him but at least take a look at it and have it on the agenda where we can take some action very good anything else that's it Charlotte yes I would like uh staff to present us with the existing weather modification contract and to go over it with us uh if they could please and talk about any updates or what's going on in that area of the world um I certainly feel it's that we should be looking at it there's a cloud the seed we want to se it yes sir anything else ma'am no sir okay I do have one and we have been discussing solutions to issues between the developers planning and the Fire Marshall and we need to resolve these issues so I need to replace an item on the agenda for the next meeting for discussion and possible action uh and I'm going to give you some some language here that you can use uh Mr Valenzuela Mr Howard might want to perfect the language uh it's discussion possible action to appendix D fire apparatus access roads of the international fire code into section additional access and make it broad so that we can discuss that plus other things so Daniel can you write that so that it's broad enough that we can discuss what we need to discuss okay Johnny do

[4:11:26] you have anything sir uh you know a couple of weeks ago I forgot what it was really we talked about maybe uh different ways of funding some of the the street projects you know Bill to to to mention one are we going to move forward with that idea of bringing it back or you know Michael we talked about the different scenarios so what what is our plan of course today we did improve the CIP as far as as a tool for us to use in the future for budget process M uh and that's something that we're actually working out at this point to address how we are going to tackle the streets uh over actually preferably over a seven-year period and Mike I'll kind of allow you to address that part of well in that meeting there were a couple of things we wanted to satisfy uh councilman vman's uh request to get some of these these issues out in open discussion so we could talk about those things and we also wanted to show that there were uh financing options which allowed us to accomplish some of those objectives I think what we need at this point is Direction uh from Council overall for what priorities are service priorities and capital priorities and uh uh we were thinking that uh if we velop the capability to finance some of these or to provide for uh pay as you go financing for some of these options uh that would allow you to more freely discuss what your priorities were for accomplishing those either capital projects or services and so I I think I would say we're ready to have a priority setting uh session uh similar to what the city manager has been an advocate for uh uh in previous discussions and we will and we will work with Council I know that uh in schedule and meeting we do have to get together with all of you and have an opportunity to sit down we had actually initially thought maybe a retreat but uh it's become a little bit more difficult to

[4:13:27] actually get a little more time for Council a couple of days so really we could spend a day we can sit down and uh go through um what we actually do have in CIP and what we truly want to prioritize U we definitely need that input and that way we can plan for it now that we're St starting the budget process and the and the reason I mentioned that cuz there are folks out there that are very much interested of course in moving forward I mean it's going to take money but you know at least the idea is there of you know different options the second thing I wanted to add is I know a couple of weeks ago there was that meeting that special meeting with about the downtown uh uh development along the river are we going to get an update on that or did I there're still in the option period sleep past that one or I know we're there's still an option yeah how much I asked that question recently because we had 180 days they've got they've gone through half of it at this point okay so they are working on it uh I know that there's some financing that they're looking at there's some issues also that they have reviewed on the property itself you know that U they had survey go out there so they're trying to iron out those details but right now they're halfway through the 180 days that we had okay given U Mr Silva's additional discussion at that meeting was whether or not to proceed with a subsequent phases of that Master developer effort and and how to accomplish those whether to try to do it in-house or to continue with the consultant um so that was another aspect that was discussed then Mr Fleming I I brought this up earlier the water restrictions when are we going to the to two times every two weeks when is that supposed to go into effect I believe that started today that's once a week starting today uh but uh let's put it on the agenda forre Ricky Rick Ricky Ricky is going to address it at the next agenda as a matter of fact it is on today then Ricky starts today it's agenda what what I requested was for this meeting for us to have the update

[4:15:29] but then with Marty being gone and and winky had uh had talked to me also about some concerns I just took it off and postponed it till next time okay so we're bringing it up for sure in two weeks corre let's discuss make some decisions next meeting anything else Ry that's it short well I just want to follow up on the request about the water Advisory Board most of the uh boards we've got a set of uh guidelines rules or bylaws or whatever I would like that brought back to council as to what they are how often they meet whether it's once a month once a quarter or let's establish and get a list of current members and where we're at good point next meeting please and I appreciate Paul Alexander he is my appointee so he's on top of it so I appreciate him bringing that up I didn't realize yeah we need that needs to be done number 22 is cons consideration of rescheduling the Tuesday august 19 214 regular council meeting to Thursday August 21 214 I'm going to quote our mayor our famous mayor our Charter says the SEC first and second Tuesday and that's when it should be so why are we moving in I remember when that very wise man made that statement first and third Tuesday okay but I'm quoting him that's so why are we changing this okay mayor we had a special request um somebody wants to reserve the entire counil so School District yes sir they will need the entire convention center hold time well I guess we could meet in the auditorium well we can meet here on Thursday no mayor we'd be advocates for having a meeting during that time uh because of the budget approval process process that gets us right into the time frame when we uh need to start approving the budget uh so uh even if we had a bad location uh we'd like to at least be able to meet and work on the budget what about the the quarters where we used to have our budget workshops over at the fort let

[4:17:32] let me explain on that one it's not conducive to filming Public Access so this just makes it easier it's a Tuesday versus a Thursday I mean a Thursday versus a Tuesday excuse me well I hate to go against that very wise man that made that statement but I don't have a problem with moving it since there is a conflict here in the whole Convention Center will be utilized by the school district mayor did you understand the word conducive I did you did I did I'm not going to spell it but I understood it does anybody have a problem with postponing the august 19 meeting to August 21 Rodney you have a problem Johnny you have a problem shorty you have a problem no I won't be hard to get along with you want to make a motion somebody make a motion to move the August Tuesday meeting to from august 19 to August 21 yes sir that's anybody want second that that works second motion's been made all in favor please say I I might be on vacation any Nays no Nays put a 5 uh announcement special meeting on April 21th 2014 at 9:00 a.m. I guess there's a reason for that too the um solid excuse me the operations bid trash trash part of that special meeting April 21th 2014 9:00 a.m. MN Convention Center is that one item on the agenda so far that probably be enough I don't know what day it is what day is it it's April 20th is Sunday it be a Monday be a Tuesday CL our next no it's Tuesday it was a Monday and it had been I had requested in case we needed that extra day uh for any anything associated with the solid waste contract so it may not be necessary if there's no other items so that that'll be at council's discretion at this point so it will be Monday the 21st then well he's saying that it may not be necessary it may not be necessary so if it's not necessary they'll be at council's discretion whether you want it or not if needed then if needed we will meet Monday the 21st for a special meeting to

[4:19:36] determine the Republic draft Waste Management now number 23 is the one I've been looking for somebody help me motion to adjourn second it somebody second all in favor say I this meeting is now adjourned

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=Vh2e69BTL2c