San Angelo City Council 3-6-18

[0:00:00] - we will call the meeting to order if everyone would please sit down at this point we would like to ask everyone if they have their cell phones with them this morning if they would please put them on silent thank you and this morning we have the principal from Trinity Lutheran Church with us this morning Ron Fricke please rise for prayer your Heavenly Father we come before you with thankful hearts thankful for the recent rain thankful for the cooler weather thank you for the blessings you have bestowed on us both individually and as a city we ask that you be with us in this meeting today and with each of our elected officials we ask that you help them make decisions that are pleasing in your sight and beneficial to the citizens of San Angelo please continue to watch over us and guide us we pray all this in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ amen now we also have today with us the fourth and eighth through eighth graders Trinity Lutheran Church and Ron are you gonna join them in leading us in Pledge as well come on up here everyone great fantastic

[0:03:01] [Applause] we will now have do our proclamations do I have someone here from the development disabilities organization Amy are you here today perfect come on up girl the month of March 2018 has been designated as national intellectual and developmental disabilities Awareness Month in order to celebrate and recognize people with disabilities and disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of people with disabilities to make choices contribute to society and experience in full the many blessings of American society and family members friends and the community at large all play a role in supporting people with disabilities as they pursue their dreams and the goals of this city properly include helping people with disabilities realize full access to housing employment and the recreational activities which help create productive and satisfying lives and to live as independently as possible therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor the city of San Angelo do hereby proclaim the month of March 2018 as intellectual and developmental disabilities Awareness Month in the city of San and call upon the citizens of San Angelo to observe the month with appropriate programs and activities furthermore I encouraged the citizens of San Angelo to seek information from those organizations with expertise in matters concerning professionals who support individuals with intellectual and

[0:05:03] developmental disabilities thank you so much for the proclamation this month so I work at mosaic we're a nonprofit organization that works with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and we work to provide people with a meaningful life and a caring community community while giving voice to the needs of people with disabilities and I just wanted to say that I thought it was kind of fun that we're having the proclamation read the same time as the Trinity Lutheran schools because mosaic was actually started in the Lutheran Church so we we were started in the Lutheran Church although we do serve all all faiths now but thank you very much [Applause] Ron would you like to come up or would you like some of your students to come up with you as well yes they may come on probably should have had you stay at stay up here and then we could have done you first I'm gonna take a picture here in a minute for over 150 years Lutheran schools have provided communities states in the country with Christian leaders in business politics military ministry

[0:07:07] education and other fields and national Lutheran schools month is also an occasion for schools to enter citizens in volunteering their time and talents to local Lutheran schools and this year's theme is it's still all about Jesus and Lutheran schools have provided a quality Christian education program that has inspired students to serve others through civic engagement and provided students with opportunities to serve while equipping them with the tools they need to fulfill their future roles as good citizens productive employees and compassionate leaders and in keeping with this year's theme locally we are joining with Trinity Lutheran School as they celebrate almost 67 years of service to our community therefore I Brenda Gunther mayor of the city of San Angelo do hereby proclaim the month of March 2018 as national Lutheran schools month and encourage everyone to pay tribute to the dedication and service of Trinity Lutheran school for their many years of commitment to the community of San Angelo [Applause] we will now go into public comment

[0:09:46] issues or items that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time citizens should speak from the podium begin by stating their name and limit remarks to less than three minutes council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda the council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items do do we have any public comment today yes mayor my name is Steve Hampton I would like to hear more about item D on the consent agenda thank you any other public comment if not we will move into the consent agenda I'm going to start with Billy and is there anything you'd like to pull from the consent agenda Billy okay Layne okay I have nothing to pull but I would like to wish my daughter of Burke Sanchez a very happy birthday today very good Harry no ma'am okay so we are going to pull item D and with that do I have a motion to approve the rest of the consent agenda with the exception of item D a second is there any public further public comment if not we'll take a vote all in favor of approving the consent agenda with exception of item D say aye any nays passes 7-0 so we will go to item D consider awarding RFP P 1 - 0 1 - 1 8 television studio - Nell Koh many media incorporated in the amount of 294,000 158 dollars and 80 cents

[0:11:49] budgeted in the fiscal 18 and to be paid using PEG fees a designated funding source and authorized the city manager or designee to execute any related documents morning counsel Anthony Wilson I'm your public information officer and this project is a little similar to one that we brought before you a couple of weeks ago and that was for having some audio/video equipment installed into city auditorium and they're similar in that the funding source for this project is the same as that project and you'll recall that is something that we call the peg fee peg standing for public educational governmental access channel which s a TV channel 17 is the city's governmental access channel and suddenly as our cable provider provides us a fee that can only be used for for one thing and one thing only and that is for capital expenditures that relate to putting content onto the peg channel sa TV and so that fund has accumulated more than five hundred thousand dollars so we're here to propose using a portion of those funds in order to equip a television studio some of you are aware that the public information offices have been moved to the second floor of the city hall annex where the water offices now are and so we are proposing to develop that space into a television studio so that when we produce shows such as talk shows or other sorts of programming we can walk in we can flip on a switch and we can begin recording using a lot of the same technology that we have here in the in the Convention Center it's going to improve our efficiency it's going to improve the production value of what we do on channel 17 and again these funds can only be used for this sort of project they cannot be used for operating expenditures only for capital improvements and I'll answer any questions that you may have C do you have any questions thank you Tom Tommy Harry move to approve as presented all

[0:14:00] in favor Oh any further public comment with no further public comment then we'll take a vote all in favor of approving item D from the consent Genda say aye any opposed passes 7-0 we will now move into the regular agenda the first item a consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of city of San Angelo Texas combination tax and limited surplus revenue certificates of obligation series 2018 appointing a pricing officer and delegating to the pricing officer the authority to prove on behalf of the city the sell of the certificates the terms of the certificates and the offering documents for the certificates establishing certain parameters for the approval of such matters by the pricing officer approving the use of a pain agent register agreement leveling an annual ad valorem tax and providing for the security for and pavement of said certificates providing an effective date in enacting other provisions relating to the subject that's a big statement not sure I know what I just read through that okay Tim you're our new mayor council mr. Allen Zoila I'm Tina deer ski the Director of Finance you've heard mention of this bond issue before we came to get permission to public publish the notification of intent to issue these bonds at 16 point or not to exceed sixteen point five million dollars and this agenda item is to allow the pricing officer namely me to accept the bids when they come in and of course we would accept the lowest bid that comes in as far as the interest rate and so that's what this agenda item allows us to do any questions questions from Council do I have a motion motion to approve second any public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of approving item a say aye

[0:16:05] any opposed passes 7 0 item B consider proving the following items 1 allocating up to $374,000 for capital projects including 294,000 from the ho to occupancy tax fund balance for facility improvements and to awarding bid Co l - oh 1 - 1 8 - accurate err solutions for the replacement of a chiller for the foster communications Coliseum first Community Federal Credit Union spur arena in the amount of one hundred and seventy thousand nine hundred twenty one and authorizing the city manager or is designated negotiator an execute a contract and any related documents Sydney urine morning council good morning mayor first of all I want to start off with our facility projects phase one we completed eleven of the twelve facility projects the project that we did not complete was the resurfacing of the farmers market we with the research that we've done there is extensive work that we need to do in several other areas as well so we would like to be able to bring that back to you all in the future for right now we would like to be able to just repatched those areas and move along with that we will also be starting on the lower ring for the Coliseum with allocated funds from 2014 those funds were allocated then and we refinished the we finished the VIP roof the lobby roof and also the main dome and we're looking to complete the lower ring with those allocated funds that were already approved in 2015 and also the we're going to use the capital improvement funds for the Convention Center for the interior restoration that was something else that we took off of our list and we will be able to handle that in-house as oil it says completed 11 of the 12 facility projects would you go through what those

[0:18:07] 11 facility projects our Sydney yes so those 11 projects would be first we started off with the with the so we started off with the sewer project that was here at the convention center that was one of the projects that we did we did also do the river stage chairs on the new chairs that we did purchase we also did the retelling for this Coliseum as well for that area we did purchase new doors for the backside of the Coliseum too we also completed we also the paseo the doors at the paseo as well and the Andalites changing the LED lighting for the paseo too as well the other projects were as well the in one second yes sir the the roof project as well for the convention center is another project that we did complete I know I'm missing something at the Coliseum as well that was also completed - we can yes there was a few other projects too as well that was improved that was completed for those projects - your interior restoration for the Convention Center involves one interior restoration involves if you notice in the hallways over here we do have damage to our walls that was from the rain as well and leaks in certain areas with the replacement of the roof that was done this year this past year or now moving on to getting that completed with interior restoration so the timeline of the events that we've completed in

[0:20:12] December we I should took a tour with city staff as well as our civic events board in December of all of our city given venues on which to Katara board for the discussion in January with a board recommendation and last month in February the three I uh the three keys that we're looking for that we're looking to cover with these projects that we're looking to do are the some of them are safety issues others are cost savings and then also loss of business and revenue we definitely do not want to lose any type of business that we already have as well so for our facilities projects phase two the needs that we're looking at is for the Coliseum if you can see we're looking at the safety needs those safety needs include changing out the exit lighting that's also needed over there the emergency lighting as well there's a lot of safety issues that we would like to take care of for our customers needs is moving forward also we have the chiller replacement for the Coliseum there's three chillers that's out there one of the chillers has been down for several years we've been robbing parts off of there to make sure all the other two have been working sooner or later we're gonna need to replace that chiller as well to be able to keep going as for that the stage for the Coliseum we're at 60,000 it's sick I'm sorry 60 years old and it's about time for us to be able to get a new stage of course with technologies there's other things that's out there there's a lot more durable a lot more safer for our for our employees as well to be able to move those around the electrical repair for the river stage last year whenever we did have one of our concerts and events we're starting to notice that we're needing more power in certain areas and a lot more of a lot more outlets too as well so there's a lot of electrical repair that will help us at the river stage for us to be safer whenever we do have those big events out there at the river stage LED lighting for the Coliseum is at

[0:22:16] 30,000 with the LED lighting that is for the main area that LED lighting is will give us a cost savings in and savings over the 10 years would be about around 20 thousand four hundred and forty eight dollars as well so I mean there's some pretty good cost savings for us and we would like to move forward to plus if you know in the Coliseum it takes us if when we're turning on the lights and there does take about 15 10 to 15 minutes to be able to turn on move into the LED lighting with a click of us with the switch going up we'll be able to turn those lights on immediately as well as with the spotlights right now we're down to only two spotlights whenever we do have major events they come into the Coliseum we're in need of at least four spotlights so coming up in two weeks we have WWE and they're in need of four spotlights so we're gonna have to go out and rent some to be able to keep that event coming to San Angelo rental cost it really varies we would have to go we go to Dallas however if I if I remember correctly it was approximately about three thousand it's what we spent last time for I want to say three of them but I think that was over a consecutive amount of days so with our Civic event facility needs our total estimated cost is three hundred and sixty four thousand dollars with a project contingency of ten thousand dollars with the total amount request in is three hundred and seventy four thousand now with our first phase of projects we were able to save at least eighty thousand dollars from that from those projects so the amount there coming to y'all meeting is 294 thousand dollars I recurring fun for ten balanced apologize that's the wrong slot up there but our current fund for ten balance is a million that is our current for front-end fund for ten balanced right there which is a little less than seven hundred thousand but the fund balance that we would like to take that from it

[0:24:19] would be the 605 balance which is a million and three that's that's in there as of January 31st and 28:18 hot receipts who were budgeted at as looking at a million and eight as we read so any questions on the items that were needing do we have questions from Council look like you had a question I do could you back up a couple of slides no go forward one so you're requesting three hundred and seventy four thousand dollars yes Martin and you said you had facility project savings of 80,000 yes well my first question cuz I have a couple my first is you said earlier that you completed 11 of 12 projects and that one that you didn't complete was that you just found the one that we did not complete is the resurfacing of the farmers market area with the quote that we did receive for it we would need to finish out the farmers market area as well as Paseo the total of that is actually $50,000 and with what we're trying to move forward with we're looking at bringing that forth later on in the future because the items that we're looking at now is we feel is more important well moving forward then just doing that right now we're gonna just go ahead and repatched those areas for right now and but soon in the future we'll have to come back and discuss we resurface into all of those areas total right now you would have that $50,000 in your fund so it's not an issue about not have the funds it's just not what you're presenting today for approval when we first did it we did we were receiving eleven thousand six hundred and forty dollars I believe for the resurfacing but when we went back into it there was other needs under the farmers market the lot they use a certain type of machine

[0:26:24] to be able to get under those area so that was going to make the labor a little bit higher than where we were clarified thousand dollars savings from his projects from last time so those dollars are not available for him to spend right now because y'all allocated those for specific projects so he's saying he saved eighty thousand dollars you need to reauthorize him to be able to spend those on these upcoming projects my next question you talked about the 410 fund versus the hot tax fund or whatever that was 14 so you were requesting money I mean it looks like your current fund balance of 699 is you know you would use all of that and then the remainder you would want from the hot yes yes but also keep in mind for our fund 410 balance we do have a 90 day emergency fund too as well a 425 thousand dollars so that would be taken away from there as well for our 90 day balance so that will leave us with a lot more less than six hundred and ninety nine thousand your emergency fund would include things like when the Convention Center got flooded or what would be an emergency so we are we have a goal of keeping 90 days worth of operating expenditures in the fund balance and I think that's what sid is referring to as emergency fund balance and that would be our goal to always keep that in there in the event that we did not see revenues or expenditures come out the way that we had previously budgeted and so that's what we always try to keep in all of our funds it's a goal for fund balance okay scribe what the 410 so fun 410 is the Civic events fund and so that's where we track things like the Coliseum the Convention Center all of those conventions or excuse me civic events types items and we track the revenues and expenses of those in there the hotel occupancy tax is tracked and fund 605 yes and so we budget for the revenue for

[0:28:29] hotel occupancy tax in 605 and then we budget and expenditure of 48 percent of that amount goes to fund 410 and they received that as revenue to use for civic events right now you're hot tax money is on budget it is actually slightly above budget yes ma'am really did you have a further question do I have further questions from Tom Tommy or Harry all right are you ready for us as well okay do I have a motion motion to approve that you're actually proving two things you're proving the expenditure of the funds as well as accepting a bid for the chiller at the Coliseum so Tina are you gonna have to bring a budget amendment back to spend the fund balance portion yes since we are accessing fund balance that is a budget amendment that will require council approval we expect to bring that in April that portion of this item you'll see again answer 94,000 as a budget amendment in a future agenda or should okay so are we approving item one and two on item B and do we need to take a separate vote on one and two just as long as that's part of the motion okay so is that part of the emotion there's a separate say she does have a second presentation as part of this so you can do it either way you could take a motion on each individual item or you can just take a motion at the end well we just won't do it at the end okay so now we're looking at considering awarding the bid for two accurate air solutions for the replacement of the

[0:30:30] chiller for phosphor munication Coliseum first Community Federal Credit Union spur arena in the amount of a hundred and one hundred and seventy thousand nine hundred twenty one dollars and authorizing the city manager's designee to negotiate and execute a contract and any related documents so we had sixteen RFP invitations that were sent out and nine vendors participated actually in the pre-bid which took place in December and then four proposals were received in January those out of those four proposals accurate air solutions out of Abilene was the lowest in quality and also qualified that included a unit the install two year warranty on parts labor and refrigerant the chiller replacement would be a hundred and sixty-five thousand nine hundred and thirteen dollars with the additional one-year warranty of five thousand and eight dollars which would make the total cost one hundred and seventy thousand nine hundred and twenty one dollars the source of funding of course would come out of fund 605 hotel occupancy tax of a million 0.3 and looking for approval I'm sorry our Civic events advisory board did approve of us in the chiller replacement as well as city staff okay so that chiller is one of three yes ma'am and the other two are Anglican and Darrington working condition okay do I have questions comments from Council on the chiller if not then Tommy you want to present your motion I mean Tom a motion to approve as written is that what you need on this bra motion to prepare item items one in two is there a second Lucy seconds it do we have public comment on agenda item b1 or two with no public comment we will take a

[0:32:38] vote all in favor of approving item b1 and to say aye any opposed motion passes 7-0 item C first reading and public hearing of an ordinance amending chapter 5 business and commerce section 5.0 4.0 3.9 permit for persons holding a mobile or temporary food establishment permit or food trucks and John you're on thank you John James Director of Planning and Development Services as you probably know we've been looking at food truck regulations we held a forum public and food truck owners and got a lot of good feedback from them on things that we could do to streamline the process we are looking at a number of things and this is just the first first piece of the puzzle this is a fairly simple one right now food truck vendors have to go through the itinerant business permit process which means going the police department getting fingerprinted and all of that and that was really designed for people who go to door-to-door sales or people who set up in parking lots selling you know vending things and so that was one of the things we heard from the food truck vendors that this was really something that's that's not necessary and after reviewing this we agreed that that this process really wasn't designed for food trucks and so basically what this does is create an exemption if you're hold a food truck permit or a mobile or temporary food permit this would exempt you from that itinerant business permit that would prevent them from having to go to the police department one of the other things we've done that really isn't part of this but is related doesn't require any ordinance changes but we are streamlining the process there were some confusion from food truck owners do they start with PD do they go get their food permit from health also there's a review

[0:34:42] by Planning and Fire Marshal and so what we've done is simplified that PDS out of it if you adopt this change but they would start with the health department with their food truck application then that would be routed from health to planning in the fire marshal so the person with the food truck doesn't have to go from place to place we would do all that internally once it's ready to issue the permit that would be issued by health and so we think that would streamline it like I said we're looking at a number of other changes Sanders looking at some changes on the health food side we're looking at some changes from the planning side but again this is just the first piece with that I'd be happy to answer any questions any questions from Council Billy John is there any kind of background check through health or planning or anybody on you know a proposed food I don't believe so I mean what we're trying to move towards as having them fall under the same requirements as any other restaurant so we don't we don't run background checks on leaders and okay people who work in a brick-and-mortar restaurant so this would just simplify it and make them meet the same requirements Thank You Lane did you have a comment okay wait second is there any public comment on item C with no public comment we will take a vote all in favor of approving item C say aye any nays passes 7 0 item D public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 10 traffic control article 10.04 stopping standing in parking division one generally section 10.0 4.00 3 stopping standing or parking prohibited and specified places

[0:36:46] by creating subdivision F parking temporarily prohibited during Maine during Street maintenance activities regulating parking on public roadways during Street maintenance booty's as designated by the Director of Public Works providing for notice of Street maintenance activities and pursuant to section 2 308 point 354 of the Texas occupations code appointing a city designee with authority to immobilize and remove vehicles from public roadways during Street maintenance activities where parking is temporarily prohibited providing repealing and savings clauses and providing an effective date Russell you're on simplify that for everybody [Music] thank you all for having me this morning yeah so I'm just going to basically go quickly go over the intent of this ordinance and just a brief explanation of this ordinance which will hopefully be fewer words and what Brenda just had to vegetate so anyway so what we're bringing this ordinance to you for is for towing of vehicles in the public right-of-way during our scheduled maintenance activities for sealcoat and any utility you know planned utility rehab projects that we have coming up and the main thing that we're trying to prevent here is what I have shown here in this picture is during our sealcoating projects a lot of times we'll get vehicles that get left in the street you know and we've tried contacting homeowners or the homeowner doesn't have the capability to move the vehicle and so it oftentimes happens and if you can see here there's what we call a skip we have this area here where we still coated the remainder of the street but where this vehicle was parked we were unable to you know unable to sealcoat that portion same thing in this

[0:38:48] picture here you know we have a another skip where we had to go around the vehicle and what we want to do with this ordinance is basically eliminate having those instances where we have to leave a skip you know an incomplete project basically you know a lot of times during our construction of the sylco construction we do make an effort to come back to these areas to make sure that that you know in case they have been able to move in since we've been there and we go back and steal code but there's still as always a handful that that we're unable to do during the actual sealcoat project so what this ordinance requires us to do is to give every homeowner a minimum of seven days notice that we're going to be in the area going to be working in the area and that we need them to move their vehicles what we're going to do with this ordinance too is we're not going to necessarily impound these vehicles we're going to hire you know get with a tow truck they're gonna come pick up the vehicle moving around the corner long enough for us to sealcoat the entire Street and then we'll come back and put it back where we found it and move on to the next street or what have you but there again this this ordinance is not intended to impound vehicles it's intended to just move them out of the way while we're doing our maintenance activities and put them back in place there are other cities that do this we've you know checked with Midland Odessa they currently do this I Abilene may do this as well I'm recall right off the top of my head but you know this is where we got the idea from you know our contractors that that have been working with us the last two or three years they've mentioned this to us you know and they've you know they want they want to have a good product - at the end of the day and you know they just thought that you know to pass this along you know hey Midlands doing this why can't Santa Angelo do this - so we looked into that and we're moving forward with it and that's what we're trying to come to conclusion on today when you say requires a minimum seven days notice how

[0:40:52] are we notifying people because that endlessly becomes the comment that I didn't get notified and how did you notify me what's the method so the method of notification is definitely on sealcoat what we do is that we require that or we put it in our contract that the contractor has to go out and do door hangers seven days prior to you know doing the construction in that area so what they do is they go from it to every door and put a fire on there saying hey we're gonna be here you know within this time frame and you know this is you know subject to being towed if you don't have your vehicle out of the way what we can also do is we can also do a public meeting if that's necessary but that's that's been just our standard practice is just to go door-to-door with flyers I understand thing and you know something on the door or taping something on the door but when I was campaigning there was so oftentimes people hadn't been through in their front door and forever you know based on what was built up at their front door so you know I'm sure some people probably don't get that notification but the thing that you said that sort of Concerned me is that we will move the car so that we can get a good product and then we'll put it back so if we have a resident who is unable to move their vehicle I wonder why that is and why would we put it back it sounds like it must be a disabled vehicle and we the police department tags disabled vehicles so I guess I'm a little bit confused on why we would put that back right they might be on vacation they might be on a wonderful two-week luxury cruise for example and we have found that - or you know my you know my son this is my son's vehicle and he's in the

[0:42:55] military we've had that as well you know where that he's deployed to across you know who knows where and you know we've run into that issue as well so it's not always that it's a disabled vehicle but PD does still have that capability to do that you know what you know under penes ordinance for towing vehicles it doesn't necessarily address maintenance activities and that's why I'm bringing this here today so that we can more specifically address our maintenance activities and you know get a good product at the end of the day and you know if we do notice that there it appears to have been there for a number of days that we can report to PD and address that at a later date in reading some of the background material on this it looks like there is a $75 towing fee and the city pays that and I'm a little bit confused why would like why is that the city's obligation and not the residents well I mean you know I'll have to give a trace on that a little bit just because I mean we could under this ordinance there is a penalty clause you know that this could be classified as a misdemeanor and that we could potentially you know depending on the situation we could take it you know to further action based on if they're confrontational or something to that effect or you know what it would entail but you know we could recoup our costs that way the intention with this ordinance was not to to penalize someone because we are trying to do maintenance activities you know it's you know and typically on a you know on average sealcoat we have anywhere from about five to ten of vehicles that we have to work around so you know it would and the overall cost of the project I didn't see it as being a huge burden to - the cost to get to get the final project or

[0:44:58] product where we need it so that's you know that was just an estimated cost I was just curious about that because you're right based on $75 for ten cars it's not an exorbitant expense but I still just wonder why the city is responsible for that I think part of the concern there is that in order for us to hold the property owner responsible for that fee there would have to be a court proceeding saying that they violated the ordinance and it would be a long extended process I mean with top courts it could potentially involve police we're trying to get this activity out of the police department the car impoundment rules are pretty rigid as to how that operates and it takes a lot of police time so that's one reason we weren't having a lot of active enforcement on these vehicles prior to passing this ordinance so it's more cost affective to do it the way we have been doing absolutely yes man did you have a comment or question how can we keep the 7 days I've notice in check because coming from experience my notice came 45 minutes before they showed up on my front while my Street sure didn't one of the workers parked out in front of my truck laying on his horn waking up the new morning you know at this point I'm trying to save my wife and every new mother from murder at this point we can seize right I mean it's what we have in our contract you know oftentimes you know these guys are they they move very quickly and it is hard to keep that in check but you know we'll just have to hold them to it on the contract you know if we can maybe come up with a some type of liquidated damages for for that so that's something we would have to look like and look at into our contract as we before we move and they're moving moving pretty fast out of that seven-day notice and it is a 45 if there's a car parked out in front on the street are they going to go door-to-door again and say hey is this your car or and make the effort to try to find out who's basically yeah no they we do that regardless you know trying to you know

[0:47:01] just trying to get the project completed I mean they you know even though they've done a skip in the past you know they still come back before they leave town to every one of those locations and still do a follow-up to see whose vehicle that is and we'll you know be continuing to do that as well area I think you had a question or comment it's really more of a comment based on what Billy said earlier I wonder if we we know approximately when these contractors are gonna be on every street I wonder if we take that opportunity to work with code compliance a little earlier than that to try to come out and look at some of these vehicles that may be disabled to try to move through that process before the contractor has to come down that Street we can do let me ask you a question is does the notice specify that there will be a $75 fee if it's not moved on the day because it's one thing for a to talk about it here but I think there needs to be in the notice it's placed at that residence that there will be a fee if the car has to be removed if he is actually paid by the city but what the notice requires is the type of maintenance activity to be conducted the expected duration of the activity during which parking is going to be prohibited and a reference to this ordinance saying that we can move your vehicle but the fee is intended and under this ordinance be paid by the city I just wanted to ask a whistle you know you said you got this ordinance from other cities did they ever have any problems with people coming back and saying hey you did this to my car or it didn't have this dent when you all that kind of the liability involved with a sure yeah I'm sure they do to some extent but you know how that's handled I'm not a I'd had the there again defer to Teresa like anybody else who says we damage

[0:49:04] their property and risk we'll go out and evaluate their claim and we would talk to the towing company in to the contractor and to decide whether or not we're gonna pay or not pay those claims Billy's point earlier many people enter their home through their garage or the carport and so the question mark is are we working with a contractor is to ensure that they understand that the front door is not always the most used door because if it's on those front doors it can be a week before they enter we don't want to send a contractor to somebody's back door though either well I'm not talking back doors but use you know a lot of carports are on the side of the house and a lot of people and many garages are on the side of the house so the question mark is you can usually tell on a door by door basis which doors most frequently and in fact if there's three phone books at the front door you probably know they're not using the front door so I just may want to make sure that we're working with contractors in terms of better understanding how we know to fight because that always ends up being the problem I wasn't notified when did you notify me I didn't get enough days notice to be notified it's always the big question mark out there sure and we can always ask a contractor to to put a you know a date stamp on the notification as well to notify them hey we were here on this date and you weren't here why does this not include something in terms of a written notification in addition to the door hanging notification to the last known owner of that residence 7 to 10 days as well as the door hanger so like sending an actual meal that's in and something through the United States right well just because of the added cost that's included with mailing having

[0:51:08] that mail out you know we have a clue what that cost is it depends largely on the project you know every year our sealcoat project buries this year we're doing an almost double project because our doubled the size because you know we finally got some funds back on the 2013 seal code so you know it'll vary from year to year but to actually pinpoint what that's you know we can come up with that it's definitely achievable to come up with that number for each project but you know the to just budget for it every year would be well I'm Lane is right the mayor is right the notification is going to be a big deal we need to either work with the contractor more diligently or we need to do something in addition to and this is my opinion in addition to just the door because the mayor is right Billy's right in terms of campaigning there's a lot of people that do not use their front door at all ever use their front door so we may need to rethink that or somehow impress upon the contractor whomever they maybe yeah I mean we can I mean it's just an added cost that's gonna help project we can we can do that you know we can just add it into the contract that they you know hey we'll give you a list of addresses that these fliers need to go out to and I'm saying you have to do that I'm just saying I'm just wondering if that might you know we're gonna the question will arise the question will arise yeah I didn't get notified why didn't I get notified Lane gets notified 45 minutes and advise oh we just need to be be prepared to deal with that with all this being said is there something on there I mean most people check their mail so when these residential areas I don't know what's legal if you could leave it on something we checked nearly every day oh that's a federal as well as you know there's art

[0:53:13] there are other you know areas of talent you know they have a common mailbox you know and you know you don't necessarily have a mailbox at everybody's door too so I mean you run into that issue as well Ben woods all on a common mailbox so that becomes complicated as well yes yes mayor how would it sound to counsel if we asked Russell to work with Anthony for some kind of public service campaign to let people know to look for these postings on their front doors and try that as an interim step to a direct mail if we if we did something like that ran it regularly on 17 that that would help it wouldn't get us full coverage there'd still be people we'd miss sure and I mean we do that every year you know we do that campaign every year to notify people hey we're gonna be out doing sill code and every year we get somebody hey I didn't know y'all we're gonna be doing that so how many cars are we talking about five to ten five to ten each year Ukraine in total total that's not know we're spending a lot of words and effort on five to ten cars over an annual basis it's not unless it's your car it's not a big yeah okay thank you any further question or comment from Russell okay you'll have to remind me I don't believe we've taken any emotion on this so if one could give me emotion that would be terrific I move approval in a second do I have public comment at this point there's no public comment we will take a vote all in favor aye any opposed passes 7-0 an item e because it is lengthy what we're going to do is take one at a time and I'm gonna read one at a time I'm not going to read through the whole thing to begin with because you'll forget what I said by the time I get to the end and so will I so item e

[0:55:16] consideration and first hearing of an ordinance of the city of San Angelo Texas amending appendix a fee schedule for the fine ordinances one article a 6.000 which is a Parks and Recreation fees section a600 v park facility and activity fees subpart e facility rental fees to provide rental fees for Kirby park pavilion you know morning again 19 'dear ski director finance you'll recall that we go through this annual fee review process on a three-year rotational basis so that we can try to get through all of the different departments and divisions and make sure that the charges for services that we aren't charging are in line with the cost of those services our first fee that we're proposing today is a fee for car B park pavilion and the proposed fee is $300 with a $100 deposit cost of service in this case is really not applicable it's just use of a space and the right to use that space free of any others using that space while you're using it I'm the financial impact in this case we expect to be about $1,200 or expecting possibly four times a year for that to happen and there currently is no fee that's correct yes ma'am we do have fees for other pavilions and parks in the city but this one we have not yet imposed a fee for so this would include the pavilion and the concession at a proposed fee of $400 and $100 deposit we expect this happen twice a year and so financial impact of $800 and as far as comparables with other cities we're seeing Abilene at $300 for seven hours with a $100 deposit Odessa at $320 over the $100 deposit Midland at $100 for every two hours I should point out that that fee that we're proposing is a 12 hour time period so to put that in line with that Wichita Falls $300 for 3 hours with a $150 deposit and Round Rock at $200 for

[0:57:21] two hours plus $25 for each additional hour with a $100 deposit if you do have any questions about this I did ask Carl white to be here to answer any questions you might have do I have questions from someone on council I have a question okay so most cities have a limit to the amount of time that they get to use it so certainly there's some weekends where someone might want it for a morning event and somebody might want it for six o'clock event that evening so we're gonna allow someone a 12 hour use of a facility yes ma'am we did talk about that a little internally at kind of Carl wants to come speak to and with that do we have it says $100 deposit do we have the ability to go and check that Pavillion afterwards to see if all the trash has been cleaned up what does that deposit get you and what are the things that would prevent somebody from getting the deposit back this is for the large Pavilion at Kirby Community Park and when we finished the park in 2006 we intended not to rent it out because it was such a large pavilion and we had several other pavilions we had available for renting for birthday parties since that time we get about three or four requests for from companies or from families to do family reunions at a large by then so that got us to thinking about possibly opening this up for rental again it's not going to be that often we're not going to run it during special events if somebody wants it for 12 hours we'll have that day the entire day and and the board wanted the restricted to only one day not two days or more for the rental so yes if somebody wanted to write it we're in it they would have it for the whole day between the hours of 8:00 and 10:00 o'clock whatever they wanted so it would only be one rental a day and is this the same thing I'm assuming in the

[0:59:24] past many nonprofits have used the pavilion at no cost so would this mean that nonprofits would now pay to use the pavilion no that's not the intent it's this is strictly for private use for family reunions family functions company events not for nonprofit special event use it would still go under the special event application process or do they just Parks Department somebody is there a contact person or other question if if in fact somebody comes up and says oh we had it rented from such I mean do you have it I mean I can dream up some scenarios there but do you have somebody that can be called to verify that they have that place rented for that 12 hour time do you have an on-call person and also with our pavilion rentals they do get a slip that shows that they've had that they've rented that facility for that date in that location time period and on deposit fee all right I didn't answer that question so we do we would be able to check we have an on-call person and we have a weekend person that goes out and does rounds we could check before the rental and we can check after the rental we typically look for things that are damaged less about the trash that's left behind so it should be quite obvious if there is damage to a facility related to that event I think that there needs to be a provision that says that they need to take their own trash away right and there is that okay in the rental right it looked like somebody's hand was going up did I have anybody's hand over here any other questions for Karl on item 1 should we vote on each item ok so at this point do I have a motion Harry Lucy any public comment no public comment

[1:01:32] we'll take a vote on item e1 all in favor all right an opposed pass this 7 0 so item 2 article a 6.000 Parks and Recreation fee section a six zero zero five park facility and activity fees subpart F miscellaneous event fees to adjust summer camp weekly fee and add holding fee okay so this is a two part request our current fee for the summer camp for four kids is $55 per week per person we're proposing a bit of an increase to $65 per week per person and also to implement a holding fee of $10 per person the cost of service is not necessarily not applicable but it involves so many variables that it would be very time-consuming to calculate so we're relying a lot more on the comps with this one with local daycares and with other city run camps the financial impact that we expect would be about thirteen thousand two hundred dollars I'll tell you that the reason for the holding fee of $10 per week is that in the past recreation has seen you know kids show up for a couple weeks then go a couple weeks with not coming then maybe coming back or maybe not coming back for the rest of the summer and so we're losing revenue with with not filling that spot with another potential child that could who's family could really use our services and so I'll show you the comps here I blame summer camp is $85 a week the YMCA here in San Angelo is 98 212 midland doesn't have a program Wichita Falls is $100 for their camp Round Rock is 72 $100 per week and College Station is a $70 to $150 per week and I do think mr. Brent Casey is here to answer any questions you may have as far as the program okay do we have questions from Council and so that $10 fee go back a slide yeah how do you have a question

[1:03:37] time I think it's the same thing he was the holding fee part of the weekly fears that added on top of the holding feet so if a child did not show up for one week they would pay the $10 if they wanted to keep their spot in the program and they would not pay this $65 that week they would pay the $10 to hold their spot say if they went on vacation or something like that you pay the $10 instead of the $65 to hold your spot so one so if someone wants to sign up for the summer camp do we have these every week so when you say weekly fee so there's something for 13 weeks 12 weeks and yes I think that's part of the program if Brent wants to speak to it okay morning mayor city kills me you know yes there's two locations south side recreation center and Cara Johnson our gross recreation center in the summer camp goes for 11 weeks we have 60 kids at each location so then we have normally we have a waiting list so that's kind of the idea we couldn't even go to the waiting list because we couldn't track the parents down or whatever so that's why we're trying to implement the $10 just to hold that spot if they're planning to come back just to help us kind of gather and be able to put the next person on the list so when most people sign up do they say my child's gonna be here for the entire 11 weeks the majority of them do yes but then we get a couple of them hey my kids not gonna be here for the next three weeks because they're going to Grandma's house we're going on vacation for a couple of weeks we're taking their cruise you just mentioned a few minutes ago whatever the case may be but some of them don't bother to tell us so we're going to put something in there that says they have to tell us by the second Thursday and pay that money to hold that spot or we can go to the next person yes Dan we did we did have a discussion about the holding fee if number was actually a good number or not based on the fact that they are there's there's quite a need in our community for for these slots as well if you're gone for three

[1:05:38] for weeks that's $40 really and when we could actually have a child in there that really needs a service and we're forgoing those monies that could be coming in as well as we thought when I share with $10 is enough or to me it's almost who cares and I wonder if it's enough of a fee to encourage someone to make sure they notified us we can understand definitely if you're gonna be gone two maybe three weeks but I mean if you're missing half the time or maybe you're gone nine weeks out of the eleven and you basically took a slot that another child could have had so that's a concern on my end and that's the discussion we did have so we did talk about is $10 enough or do we need to be looking at something else if we know that I'm sorry I just come up with maybe he could only miss so many times in weeks and then he wouldn't be eligible to come back to the program that that way you to have another child to take that slot and that's actually a very good question because if you do put a time line or you you miss for more than three weeks at that point the holding fee is longer no longer ten dollars but it's going to be a certain amount you know that then itself as a possibility as well but again my issue is just to make sure that we do have those slots available to those the children they really do want to be there and are gonna be there every week is this the first year we've had the holding fees yes sir you know maybe maybe we use this as the beta year and then you can you can obviously come back to us next year with with what you may need - yes sir and that it does exactly my goal I didn't want to put a financial burden on any of the families and just ten dollars sounded like a reasonable way of keeping track to me but it definitely can come back with more it's not a burden if you communicate yes ma'am true yes many of them typically opt out for a period of time are we talking ten kids twenty kids

[1:07:40] it depends just a rough there yeah there's sixty spots at each location we've had as few as 30 in the location before the longer you go into the summer then the people parents are trying get that quick vacation in or send him away to Grandma and Grandpa fur before they go back to school it just varies so much for the beginning at least a half of summer it's nearly every kid has a point in time when they're going to be yeah 65 bucks is a small price to pay to get rid of your kid for summer camp I think you're holding she needs to go up to at least 20 bucks I mean it if you don't do some revenue on this thing and I try to tell people if if you don't do this to make revenue to pay for it not only pay for it to pay the people we have and you know you're gonna forego several hundreds of dollars with kids that are out of kids that would pay so I think you take your holding fee to 20 bucks at least try to recoup some of that out of it particularly if you're saying on some occasions we can take 16 the only 30 show up I mean 30 times 65 is a lot of revenue to miss for a simple reason of just lack of communication people need to understand again that there are other kids on a waiting list who would really like to be there and we've had to say no to them so I'm actually an agreement with Tom that the $10 is too low we probably should relook at that number and then use it as the test for the first year so I would entertain a motion with that change take a motion as written but change the holding fee to $20 per person is there a second do we have any public comment with no public comment we will take a vote all in favor of the proposal with a change of the holding fee going to $20 not $10 say aye any opposed motion passes item we'll

[1:09:47] move on to item three article a 14.000 cemetery fees section a four zero zero two cremation section a 14.04 overtime in section a 4.0 six dis internment to a just said fees okay so I think we have a proposal to increase three fees for cemetery and then to remove one that is no longer applicable I'll go through I think I'll go through each fee and then Jeremy Walker is here to discuss so the cemetery weekend great opening the current fee is one hundred and seventy dollars for the weekend opening plus twelve hundred and fifty dollars for closing for a total of fourteen hundred twenty-five dollars the proposed fee is two hundred dollars for a weekend opening plus the 1250 closing which would not change for a total of fourteen hundred and fifty dollars the costs of service is three hundred and five dollars and the financial impact would be fifty dollars did you stop right there so you're saying that if if someone unfortunately dies and needs to be buried on a weekend there's additional fees I wouldn't ask mr. Walker to come speak to that good morning on that fee that we're talking about here is just if the employees have to come in just to dig the hole on that day that's why it's 175 that's the fee for that that's historically been done because we're paying overtime usually for those employees a lot of times them do that on the weekends so if the family chooses not to go during a weekday then that's it's not choosing it's this is when they passed away so it's a reality it has historically been in place by the council and cemetery board based on it's more expensive for the city to cover that on the weekend because of overtime doesn't read well cost of service 305 what is that that's the paying our employees and also

[1:11:50] the work they're doing for is using the backhoe and for at the time digging the grave Jeremy could you clarify is that 305 compared with the 175 and 200 or with the total so that's just the cost of opening on the weekend so it's comparing with the 175 and 200 not with the 1400 may or may be this may help maybe let me ask a question that could the assumption be made the grave opening would usually be done Monday through Friday even though it may be a Saturday service or are there some are there some unusual situations where it is opened on the weekend correct it is normally if it's a Saturday service the bravest normally open during the week and we do charge and overtime charge for the service itself on the weekend but this is just pertaining to far as if our guys have to come in say family wants a Monday service then they have to come in on Saturday to actually open the grave or on a holiday to open the grave so the current fee is 175 great and you're proposing $25 increase so the the fee already exists yes ma'am and then there's also $25 increase yes ma'am on the closing am I reading that right opening and closing on the opening the actual work itself for them come in and actually do the work is what we're talking about you're going from 175 to 200 right and the cost for that service to the city is actually 305 great so you're bringing it up to 200 closer to the 305 and the actual cost of the closing is staying the same at 12:50 right so you're alright so we're given we're asking for $200 for a service that costs 305 and the fine line to point out

[1:13:55] a financial impact there's $50 so we're clearly not expecting this to happen very often because that would be twice twice a year actually so that fee exists so it's not like it's new Oh would you like to see the city comparables uh-huh okay so Abilene is charging $1,200 they include the opening in the closing in one fee odessa 1200 Midland 1600 lawn Haven which is here in town 1720 Lubbock is at 750 and Belvedere is at 1345 Belvedere's here - yes and so and ours is what 1250 that what the number would be the boy it would be comparing with the 1450 proposed combined fee go back to the next line so 1450 compared to Abilene's 1200 odessa's 1200 Ella dear do I have further questions do I have any comments do I have any thing from counsel move to approve as presented all in favor say aye oh sorry I'm going to back up public comment please Thank You Mayor Steve Hamptons I have some knowledge in this area I feel that your prices are already very substantial and that you're trying to keep up with the corporate cemetery which is unreasonable so I would suggest that you you know I if you keep it at $50 I mean $25 increase that's fine but I wouldn't I would suggested not address this issue for a long time you're making a good profit on this and there are other parts to it I guess you're going to cover those next about disinterment and cremation fees also well that's part of this presentation and so we never got

[1:16:03] to them yeah quite honestly we won't take a vote yet till we have the other items on here do you need an end of it or do you need a vote on each of the individuals you can do it either way you want to it might be better to take all of the cemetery related fees together and then take it as one one vote I withdraw my motion and wait till we finish great thank you there's the cremation burial opening and closing the current fees $400 proposing $500 right at the cost of service the financial impact expected to be three thousand dollars and the comparison with other cities aveline's at 350 otis at 300 at $400 lawn Haven here in town again 695 dollars Lubbock at 300 dollars in Austin at $500 why did we throw us and in here all of a sudden I'll ask mr. Walker to answer that question Austin in here is because Belvedere here in town they don't have a section for just a cremation burial so I had to eat something I was close by and it was Austin and that's compared with the city cemetery in Austin go back to your first line on this so ours would be the most expensive regionally it is other than the other long Haven here in town and I would point out that it is in line with the cost of service that we calculated so our cost of service is more expensive than other cities for what reason it doesn't necessarily mean that ours is more expensive it may mean that they're not they're subsidizing there's you know there's all sorts of factors that could play into what there's our I don't know what they're but we use them as a comparison so if we're going to use them as a comparison is it apples to apples or oranges to peaches mmmm a in the past

[1:18:08] City Council is one of those comparisons of what other cities we've always felt that if we have a cost of service and I want to make sure that we're doing it as efficiently as possible but that's really the truth the true cost is what we want to show see the council's in the past I've wanted to see well what are the city's charging which is why we actually throw that example out there as well but it's also kind of a comparison to see where we are as far as our efficiencies one thing you'll see later on in comparing whether the communities it's obvious that there are some communities that they haven't adjusted their fees and years you know they don't go through the process that we do and we want to do this as Tina mentioned we actually do review or fuse every year but we bring certain fees every third year to the City Council so again on our part it's here because previous councils wanted to see that Jeremy with these is reviewed by the cemetery board and they recommended approval of them okay I just want to die okay continue except is disinterment reinterment for an infant the current fee is $400 I what would be half of that if it was in disinterring Li the proposed fee is $1,000 again half of that for dissing her only cost of service is actually 685 dollars and the expected financial impact would be $600 and in comparison with other cities Abilene is charging $500 Odessa $4,000 Midland 695 dollars Wan Haven $5,000 Lubbock $400 Belvedere not a political but not applicable excuse me and I'll go back to the previous slide so that you can again see what we're proposing and proposed fee of $1,000 for the city of San Angelo it's a big jump it is amazing for that increase there is a reason for that and mr. Walker you want to talk about that and

[1:20:11] what that what that means as far as a disinterment and what what issues we may face in doing that so the reason that we want to increase this fee was simply because the health hazard we've had to do this I believe twice already this year and we just don't know what we're exposing ourselves to or exposing our employees to and so we just kind of want to increase this to is a health hazard we don't we don't know it's almost like a liability in a sense the same liability every community would have or every cemetery would have our personal protection that we can go through that we don't have to pass this on to the death excuse me what kind of health hazards we do we do we were protective where we have to go out and buy equipment you know to protect our guys so yes this does include that Lily do you have it looks like you have a question or comment is this a court-ordered thing the disinterment they do have to have a permit for us to do sinter is that included in the current fee no ma'am is not included permit from from the state it's a voluntary thing but what happens in the case that we've had this year is a family member of the infant passed away in 1960s and they have a family plot now in another town and they wanted to dysentery the infant to put the infant on the place them on the family plot why would we enter um same situation it would be in our cemetery here yes they may dysentery the baby land that we have and they have a family plot in another section of our cemetery and so we were reinterred there happening once a year varies it varies there good sir mr. Walker could we go back to the other slide can you help us

[1:22:13] understand the wide disparity between the different rates do you do you have any knowledge about why that there's such a wide only one I know is for sure is Lawn Haven and like it was stated earlier it is a corporation and so that's why their prices are so high but it's because of the liability a lot of people just have a problem with disinterring the dead and they really just want to try to discourage people from doing it look it's a cemetery a Belleza City Cemetery Midland is privately owned in Odessa it sector County Cemetery do I have further questions I have one yeah on the previous conversation the city manager mentioned you know just trying to make sure we capture recapture what it cost us so the cost for that if you go to that next slide I think you said is 685 so why would we propose a fee that's above the 685 um this is what the board had recommended and this was I was bringing the council and that we just thought that was a good number and so that's why we placed it there okay so now you know when you were mentioning the hazardous gear that your employees have to Don is that covered in the would that be covered in the 685 it would be above it a little slightly above that because we have four employees and if I myself go out there'll be five so it'll be slightly above that the cost of service is based off of those five people correct do you think you could consider proposing a fee this in line

[1:24:18] with what our cost is you can make that motion when we take a vote okay Tom looks like you're looking up something yeah just yeah did you have one Harry please if we take a look at the overall budget for the cemetery the cemetery budget basically is operating in the red so you know from my perspective even though this is an Inc white an increase on this I think we probably should be looking at what we can do to allow that group to get back to where it needs to go their fund balance let me rephrase that their fund balances is in the negative I mean with 30% of it realized to the month were already nearly a hundred thousand in you know in the red not in the black so I certainly understand trying to take this off of tax payers you know I think that that's a good comment on a big picture but if we do one of these once a year twice a year it's not going to change it from black to red and I think where we know the cost of service is less than the then I have a problem proving the new proposal where maybe we are saying that we need to relook at other things in order to get it from red to black but I don't think this particular item is going to do that that's a very sensitive one that one's hard there's actually still one more part of this presentation if you wanted to wait before you take a visit the last one is just the removal of a fee and the cremation burial of chromates and I'll let Jeremy speak to why that if he's been removed currently cremation service on the weekend is $200 and we were just going to remove this and just have strictly just 325 for overtime charges in the weekend period whether it's cremation or

[1:26:23] any correct so would be 325 5 yes ma'am so you're not removing it you're just establishing the same fee correct so this isn't really a removal of fee it is a removal of a line in the ordinance okay so any questions or comments on the cremation fee all right so would you like me to go back to the first one or yeah well we I think what we probably should do if you all agree is to take each item and vote on each one separately because I think they were comments on each specific area and we can vote on that so then the first motion we are looking for is item 3 article a 14.000 cemetery fees yes you could gain a consensus to see if you can get one motion that would that would fit everything if there was it seemed to me that during the discussion it was really that third Park that was the one that might change from from what's being recommended so you might just kind of go and say does anyone have any changes to this as presented and then you could get it in one motion if you want to it would be simpler so if in fact someone would like to make a motion on item three to be inclusive of the cemetery fees the cremation the overtime in the disinterment with the one adjustment to cost of service from down from one thousand to six nine six ninety five I would entertain that actually I would make that motion six eighty five 685 Billy has made that motion is there a second I will second Tom second it and now we will have

[1:28:27] public comments Thank You mayor Steve Hampton my comments are addressing the cemetery I mean the cremation of fees I think those are excessive there are a good price more or less what you're doing there is a posthole and you don't have to pull in a big back hole to do that because you're burying a large book size and so that that seems excessive to me the disinterment fee does not seem excessive to me you dig you go in with a back hole you dig out and you sometimes pulled out a concrete box and then you have to cover the hole up so that does not there isn't there are no health issues there that's you might need to wear a dust mask but I don't feel that there's any health issues there overtime is down on weekends we could close on Sunday and and not have a Sunday charge but and and that way keep things like that but a lot of times weekends are very busy so also these these charges on do they include this setup they don't include the setup which is the tent in the chairs this is just the digging of the grave so those those cemetery fees are pretty pretty high and you're going to make a good profit there the cremation is seems to be excessive to me and the disinterment seems practical thank you thank you any further public comment did we have a motion in a second and a boat

[1:30:33] all in favor aye any opposed that's this six one I'd like to clarify my name if I'm if I may I just don't agree with the passing on the weekend burials in the time of death I agree with everything else besides that okay item efore article a 11.000 fire and rescue service fees section a 11.00 one service fees subsection F ambulance transport and transfer fees to adjust said fees these are all ambulance fees for fire um if you'd like we can go through them one by one as we did with cemetery please okay so for fire ALS one emergency we have a current fee of $830 we're proposing if you have eight hundred seventy five dollars cost of service because of service is 1205 dollars that's an average cost of all categories of medical runs and that number has calculate calculated by our consultant who does every year if you'll recall that we received some monies back for our Medicaid for ambulance services and so that's calculated when we did that big study to see how much we can get back from the state the financial impact for this one would be about $24,000 and as far as comparisons with other cities austin-travis is that 901 Denton - 855 Kerrville 837 dollars Lubbock um sees at 1503 dollars Midland at four hundred thirty two dollars Odessa at four hundred and eighty dollars and shirts at fourteen hundred and forty dollars and I'll go back to our proposed fee when you're ready go back we're proposing a fee of eight hundred seventy five dollars okay and

[1:32:42] your actual cost is 1205 so hmm again that's an average cost of all categories of medical runs so any ambulance runs that's an average cost spread out over any ambulance run that we would do and so with all the comparison cities be the same I can't speak to how they calculate their cost of service again as Daniel said earlier some of these cities are clearly subsidizing with other monies definitely when you look at Midland Odessa I'm really surprised by their fee at 4:30 and 480 it makes me wonder half and they be looking at that fee especially when you do look at the cost of service and again as Tina did mention while ago we do have a professional take a look at that to determine what actual costs it should be so I'm really surprised by those two numbers actually you don't have Abilene on their cost you've done to speak to that thank you Morty mayor council Abilene is a private EMS service city just don't run the service Midland and Odessa and I don't remember which I'm sorry one of them has not looked at their fees since 2004 and the other one has not looked at their fees since 2010 so it's been a significant amount of time since I even addressed these big like big leagues city operated there's some of the prop but well I don't know what they're privately operated they're there in this area big lake is run out of the fire department Eden is probably tied to the hospital this list bill is tied to their fire department zone I'm not sure about in Sonora it is run through their hospital but their fees are pretty close to where we're at or actually those are all above but go back to the first slide then do I have questions from Council or comments if I

[1:34:52] have no questions or comments from Council do I have a motion there's several items on this Oh you where you want it do you want to go through all of them again like we did with Ontarian okay so this is fire ALS - emergency current fee of $955 proposed fee of one thousand ten dollars again the cost of service hours across all categories of medical runs at twelve hundred five dollars and a financial impact of seven hundred ninety seven dollars as for other cities what they're charging austin Travis is at nine sixty six ten at nine hundred Kerrville at 1181 Lubbock UMC at two thousand ninety five dollars Midland at $609 Odessa five hundred and eighty dollars insurance at sixteen hundred dollars and as far as Big Lake 11:50 Eden at $1,800 Louisville at a thousand forty five dollars ozone at nine fifty and Sonora at nine ninety four again our proposed fee is at one thousand ten dollars and I'd be happy to go through those other size again if you want to see them it was the last time we looked at these fees and we have not adjusted these since 2012 yes building the difference between an ALS 1 and 2 ALS stands for advanced life support and the one in the two we based these categories on Medicare there's there's five general broad categories these categories ALS 2 as the highest run would be like a code which code would be a cardiac arrest where we're pushing all kinds of drugs using using the advanced equipment and a lot of supplies to deal with this emergency ALS one would have some of this but not to the extent that an ALS to run house and wear shirts is outside San Antonio I believe the ones that we were picking we're trying to do fire based EMS city services not private I can tell you that when I had to have a hamlets transport several years ago out of Houston in

[1:36:56] private it cost me twenty five hundred dollars for that regular basic transport and you get a question comment from counsel okay we'll move on to the third item which is ambulance transport transfer fees next we have BLS emergency our current fee is seven hundred seventy dollars for the proposed fee of eight hundred ten dollars cost of service of twelve hundred five dollars and a financial impact of nineteen thousand just over nineteen thousand dollars as far as other cities there are eight hundred thirty one in Austin Travis Benton's at 787 Carville at six hundred eighty seven dollars Lubbock UMC at eleven hundred sixty four dollars Midland at $399 Odessa at 380 and shirts at twelve hundred ten dollars big leg say $850 Eaton at nine hundred ninety four dollars Louis fell in a thousand forty five Ozona at 9:25 and Senora at nine hundred ninety four dollars and again our proposed fee is $810 how you just how do you come up with the eight hundred and ten it was about a 5% increase justed since 2012 and our cost have went up significantly for certain things in the last two years our prefilled drug cost it went up between five and six hundred percent on things we're using such as epinephrine atropine lidocaine and a drill all the liquid drugs that we push so those are billed separately no from this no so those are cost is inclusive other than mileage it includes any supplies that we use so you're saying that an increase is from five percent to six hundred percent in terms of this service that's five percent on the total bill we may you know depending on the amount of drugs

[1:38:58] that we use we may use one drug where the drugs before we're costing about two dollars a box now they're between 20 and 10 and 12 so we maybe use one we may use six you never know on what the situation may be so if you took a look at last year for example and divided out the number of runs plus the revenue what would the average cost have been number of runs repeat that well if you quote use one box one time six boxes the next I'm assuming that per run there's some analysis of what that run cost so if you took the total all of those runs yep that's so that would be in the 1205 is what last year everything in that cost there is administrative costs everything that it costs to get these in and out the door and make them run so it would include include the medication it would include staff time it would include depreciation on the ambulance all of those things comes in to get this average cost of twelve hundred five dollars yes you're right it doesn't differentiate between a low level of service run and a service that or a run that has a high level of service you're right it's it's an average it doesn't the 12:05 does not differentiate okay Billy you had a question I'm just guess I'm concerned about the proposed fee versus the cost of service there's a you know huge difference there and or most of is most of the fee covered by insurance our collection rate is in the 75 percent range that and you need to think about it in these terms that this cost of service that we're calculating for that Medicaid supplement that we received back is you know

[1:41:02] there's a fire station in place but they're counting depreciation because we have to house it all the costs that it takes to keep that there and running what we're trying to build there and you and you see that we have different costs for each one of these different things and they escalate as our involvement escalates and the stuff that we use so a BLS emergency would be like the second second lowest you have BLS non-emergency which is a basic transport to us this one we may incur using different things in that you have an als non-emergency ls1 and to that we've already been over those are the five main categories that Medicare ties to in most services set their rates off those and then you have some people bill extra for all the things they use a lot of the insurance or a Medicaid will not pay for those separate charges that's why we put this all in one inclusive charge medicaid accepts an all-inclusive fee when you file then it's filed yes that's how they prefer they will not pay if we billed for oxygen for every little thing that you use they they just pay us that fee all right so Billy did you before I comment do you have any further comment so I guess our cost is so much more expensive than the proposed fee I mean is this what you're you know what you think is the best proposal for our cost is the twelve hundred and five dollars that we're saying again is an average cost of all of these runs combined we're saying yes ma'am okay some may be more than 1205 some may be less than 1205 to come to an average of that 1205 but they may be less than the proposed fee is what I'm saying is it possible is it possible for an ambulance trying to cost less than eight hundred ten dollars is that what you're asking for this type of ambulance run no

[1:43:05] that I think the question was are we gonna see proposed fees which exceed 12:05 no she's I think she state what you're out no I was if we're proposing a fee of eight hundred and ten dollars and our cost is 1205 and you're saying Tina that that's you know an average cost over all of the services that we provide so could we see substantially less cost of service for BLS versus an ALS well what you're wanting to know is but but because you have an average cost of 12:05 basically means there could be some that are at $600 in real cost versus some that could be in real cost $1,500 okay you're looking at an average so an average is 1205 but you're going to have fewer lesser and more in order to get an average so the question mark you're asking is is 8/10 the lowest the ever associated with the BLS emergency clean actually is less than this one so yes Tony proposed fee is less than this one so is there a BOS run chief that costs less than eight hundred and ten dollars the next the next category is less it's a straight be less basic would you ever have anyone pls run that costs less than eight hundred and ten dollars would Adam answer this question first not really what you're asking I mean this is the set fee we are guests in on what we're going to use on that I mean I suppose

[1:45:08] that you know depending on what it is if it's a BLS emergency you could turn and some of these things you know they go bad or you're in there so then they turn into a much where we use a lot more stuff than we would normally use I would think that this is the base price and and we just encompass it like I said based on Medicare categories we anticipate that we're going to have to use a few things on a BLS emergency possibly bandage gauze those kinds of things and those are calculated into this type of fee all right Lane did you have some questionable medicals so if you can some people would see exactly what the ALS 1 to BLS so respiratory distress that would be in I do not have that with me according to when we make the run or billing company goes through there and they categorize this according to what each each one says if it hits this category so if we do like I said a code it'll go through their check mark use defibrillator check mark use this and that's how they determine which category gets built in we never you know unless you're just a basic transport you're doing nothing we know that's going to be a BLS macing but that's how it gets billed the personnel never know exactly which one it's going to go out as depending on what they mark in the report that they used when you mentioned a minute ago that your recovery rate on fees is about 75% so that when you make that comment does that mean that there are many people of course if you don't have insurance and aren't on Medicare and so the cost of these services are picked up by city and so that would be part of the cost of service what the mayor said is that unrecoverable 25 let's say percent plowed back into the 1205 number when he calculates that

[1:47:14] number what he is looking at for the state on their medicaid supplement he is taking all the costs that it costs to do enamels and some of these things such as I said so the cost of a fire station you have depreciation now normally you'd think we get it for a bars it's for fire but we're running amla's out of there we're using electricity we're using all the stuff in there and they take a percentage of that and that is a cost they a city called city's paying for that to actually use these ambulances so there's other cost in there that you don't normally think of it's actually called the question mark is I understand depreciation I understand cost of service the question is the 75% of the people who are there this fee regardless of whether it's BLS emergency or ALS 1 or 2 regardless if you only get 75 percent of the fees covered by insurance policies and/or Medicare educate if you will than the other 25% that's not covered by any insurance category is picked up and paid for by the city that's correct but that would be because it's still cost of service regardless of how it's paid for and that 12:05 I do not believe it's in that 1205 I do not believe he would be allowed per the state to include that lost revenue or bad that debt expense if you will to be included in that number so it would be above and beyond the 1205 if that were to be included that's correct yeah in other words the way to look at it would be 1205 is strictly the expense side not the contra revenue side so if you were if if you wanted to recover a full 1205 to oversimplify it if you wanted to recover the full 1205 you'd have to assume 1205 was that 75% number and gross that up to a 100% number that you would bill and then only collect 75%

[1:49:19] of that Medicaid supplement money that we get back that is part of that money that we don't collect so I'm looking at what the billing company says we're get so it's probably gonna be a little bit higher than that once that other money comes in but that's not being run through them on our billing side or billing side collection is about seventy-five percent so if we get five hundred thousand dollars back for Medicaid supplement that is covering a lot of those Medicaid or uninsured that is what the state is trying to reimburse us some of those funds more area you had a question or comment this is a comment and I don't know no that I can I can clear up some of this but this is strictly simple cost accounting so you take the total number of expenses that you've got divided by the total number of runs that you got and that's where you get the 1205 say that do the same thing with all the rest of these as you go down there so from that perspective I don't know if that's over simplifying it for people but that's all that's all you do what the questions are what's included in those costs is not we understand what you're saying but the problem is we're just simply asking what is in that cause that cost to find the cost to do business that's the reason we're asking the question everything to do business if you have if you have a your restaurant for example if you have that restaurant set up you've got a cost to do business for that year whatever that is then you you could sit down and say for the number of meals that you you serve out of that then you have a average cost per meal that includes labor taxes overhead building everything that you got that's how you get to that total number and that's that's that's all reasons all you do I know that's they're exactly the reason why we're asking about the Medicare Medicaid insurance because he brought up to seventy five percent so that is a part of calculating the cost that's the reason we're asking the question that's the reason we asked for a definition of that in terms of whether that's part of

[1:51:21] the cost of service or even if it's allowed to be a part of where they stopped that's the income side all you're doing is looking at the expense side the expense side is where you get the cost of service you don't look at that seventy five percent I here because that's an income side so from that standpoint when you're looking at cost of service is simply taking that you all your expenses divided by the number of runs that you make that's all we get for the cost of service now the other side of that is is if you're not making if you're not operating in in the black then to Mike's a point then you may have to take a look at say okay I've got to do something different but from this perspective the 1205 is simply those number of runs and that total expense that's why we're asking the question to understand the 12:05 yes ma'am it's BLS non-emergency the current fee is $600 proposes an increase to six hundred thirty dollars and the financial impact on this one would be about 2200 dollars and in comparison with other cities Denton's at 787 Kerrville at four hundred thirty dollars Lubbock UMC $862 Midland at 399 Odessa at 380 shorts a thousand ninety dollars and those are all the cups we have on that one so in this one her face vegan is six hundred thirty dollar cost of service is the same as in the previous one of BLS emergency and yet there the fee was eight ten and here the fee six there again that 12:05 is an average cost of all runs across the city summer why is there a difference between the current fee on the other one of seven hundred and seventy and this one is six hundred that proposed to be an eight ten on this one and the provoked because the current and proposed the service is the same the current fee and the proposed fee are based again on the Medicare guidelines in groupings and that's how we've always

[1:53:25] done that in the past the current the cost of service again we're using what the consultants gave us as an average cost of service across all runs across the city wide so it's including some may be higher some may be a higher cost in that and some may be a lower cost than that as you said earlier some may be six hundred so maybe fifteen hundred so the average cost comes out to that 1205 it's still confusing if the cost of service on this one I honest not I agree and I understand that it was just far too complicated to try to do to group them in each type of run to come out with the actual cost of service so we chose instead to go with because again it's it's multiple pages in a spreadsheet that the consultants didn't even get to this number and so we decided to just go with the average cost of service to give you an estimate of what that was yeah I do agree I think what you were saying it and that we definitely understand what would have been best would you say BLS non-emergency average cost what would that be and that would give you a better better idea actually so yeah we do understand that but it's not the way that the maybe next time around chief is there a way that are we might be able to ask the consultant because like I said he's gonna take all these other costs that we normally don't and councilman Thomas's right in one aspect that if you had a business all your costing there and you divided by that the thing you have in here is we have all these other assets that we are using for EMS that have cost that go towards this that you normally wouldn't think of and he has calculated these cost into this and give us this you know we made over thirteen thousand EMS runs last year in the varying categories so how you figure out how much in each each cost I don't know what the labor it would take to go through each individual run and go we use three boxes of drugs on this one nine on this one or all the other things to do then you get into the factors of how long were you on that run how much did at time did it take the variables are almost endless to try to calculate that how many more of the BLS

[1:55:28] emergency calls do you make versus the non-emergency calls nonemergency we made 437 and we made 30 161 in the BLS emergency 437 runs in the BLS non-emergency which is this category and 30 161 or 1 runs in the BLS emergency category Oh questions comments next up is the mileage for you which is currently at $10 I proposed we have 12 dollars and a financial impact of 12,000 $260 this is per patient mile and our other cities are charging 1350 and austin-travis $15 per mile and Denton Kerrville at $22 per mile Lubbock UMC at $24 per mile Midland and Odessa $8 per mile shirts at $20 per mile big lake at $21 per mile eating at $21 Louisville at $15 per mile Ozona 1850 in sonora at 2080 again our proposed fee is $12 per hour or per mile pardon me when was the last time this fee was relooked at 2012 and that is per patient loaded mile but you also have to remember this when we go on a run we may be gone an hour hour and a half that emili´s runs that entire time to keep everything all the drugs and everything cold in there so it's not shut off during that time frame while they're in the station their plug to a shoreline that keeps an air-conditioned and run to keep those drugs and everything inside there cool questions comments on this

[1:57:33] fee No okay next we have fire transfer out of city but still in County the current fee is $100 proposed fee $150 with the cost of service of $139 and in financial impact of thirteen thousand nine hundred forty eight dollars other cities austin travis denton Carville and lubbock UMC and not applicable my letter no deaths our $100 each shirts is not applicable and that would be at first calm city's pardon me this fee we applied I don't know when we put this in place probably 1214 years ago and we apply it to people that do not live outside of the city to help cover the cost since a lot of this is subsidized by the taxpayers inside the city limits of San Angelo do I have questions do I have comments fire for a transfer outside of the county the current fees $200 proposed it 250 in the cost of service $252 was a financial impact of 107 dollars other cities most of them do not do this or provide the service Midland and Odessa both charge $100 each do we do this frequently depending on this is this fee here is basically for when we have to go out of town we spend the night that fees to cover the motels and the food that we have to pay cuz we have when we leave for these we're generally having to stay out of town and this is for basically an out of town transport to Houston Dallas those kind of places now we're doing it 20 to 30 times a year at least the math the math suggests twice a year financial impact 107 so going up $50 would be well that's not a linear equation as far as and the guy that figures this is our billing

[1:59:34] company we do do this more than linear in his mind two plus two isn't four well he bases he's got the things on how it pays on the percentage that it pays for private insurance Medicare all the different things in there whether or not of course we most the time we get guaranteed payment on the ones that are going out of town because there is a tangible cost to the city if we're going we're going to burn so much fuel I'm gonna have to pay for a motel usually when we're doing these we're down to minimum and we're having to pay overtime to personnel to be out of town so the transports will come in at 4 or 5 o'clock in the evening they'll be gone until noon the next day for they get back so you have overtime cost us and food and motel for these personnel that are out of town actually I think they just did their math oh I don't think they took the proposed fee times the cost the service to 2 bucks instead of the current fee versus proposed but it's we see it we get let's just go I understand by services the current fee is 340 dollars $85 per hour after 4 hours the proposed fees 400 dollars with $100 per hour after 4 hours cost of service is four hundred two dollars with $100 per hour after the 4 hours with a proposed financial impact of $7,000 7020 dollars pardon me other cities are charging $125 per hour in austin travis stands at 150 per hour Carmel at $100 per hour Lubbock UMC does not provide the service Midland 50 at $50 permit fee Odessa is variable depending on the service requested and sharks is at 125 dollars per hour so standby services would be if there's an ambulance requested for perhaps a football game or something like that so this applies to schools primarily um we work about a hundred ninety to one hundred football games a year they pay this already they pay right now they're paying $85 an hour minimum four hours the rodeo graduations

[2:01:38] anything like that they require when they request standby we hire overtime personnel to do this because we do not pull from the minimum main on the floor and compromise the fire or EMS provisions that we have for the citizens so this is a service that they request and pay for I mean we actually have to have - so long story short we pay for it it's great service we have in there in our state I would say nearly event that has something that sports-related should have this and I mean you won't ever have an argument from one of us about paying the appropriate fee thank you any other questions or comments on this standby service next to review any particular slide or question on any particular line item move to approve by Lane second by Lucy public comment Steve Hamptons basically my I would propose changes of increases I think the chief has been very conservative in his his raising only five percent and it's not been raised since about 2012 so I would propose that the the first four which is the ALS one and two and the BLS er and non go has follow 1200 for the ALS one ALS - 1400 BLS 1000 and the BLS emergency BLS non-emergency 800 I have

[2:03:47] some experience in hospital I've served on a hospital board and have experienced Danny was a hospital accountant that as well many many years ago so he has understanding of the your your collectibles will eat you up as you were on that and to get into the conversation was on that so yeah I believe you were correct the others should be raised as as suggested in my opinion we have we have big backlogs of collectibles I would suggest I believe and then we're building a new fire station and adding ambulances the city has lots of expenses in this area and needs an income so I would raise those sizably would you like for me to repeat if you would please 1200 on the ALS one 1400 vos to 1,000 BLS er emergency BLS non-emergency 800 thank you thank you Steve any further public comment would anyone like to change the motion to the numbers fees that Steve just suggested he thought were realistic on through this this is year six since it's been 2012 we used Tommy's quote let's use this kind of like a little stepping-stone I'm back next to your check that was the deal need to incremental II do it I think the sticker shock would be and what he said is probably in line with a lot of the places but the sticker shock would be not good nothing that we shouldn't jump to it but let's use that as a nice

[2:05:51] little bit at a time incremental e yeah come back next year chief can we make an addendum to the motion to come back for further review in one year I was about to say the normal process is every three years but direction from Council it's to bring this back next year it could be part of that motion but you would have to make that part of your motion you'd have to make that part of your second so we have a three year cycle with all of our fees divided in thirds we review all of our fees every year we invite department directors and managers to bring any fees that they think are not where they should be every single year we review anything that comes up but we do have a set group every three years that we go in-depth and make sure whether it's brought up by someone else or not whether we feel like the cost of service is in line with a charge for service so is there a fee related with doing that review brown sugar we have to pay that consultant something to give us this report we the consultants a percentage of what we get from that Medicaid supplement I believe it's like 6% so lame you want to run a major motion one yeah Lane Lane needs to the one I'd like to revisit this to where we can get that increment going so I'll move to approve with a relook and your from now on this specific item seconds.that so all in favor of the ax men any opposed motion passes okay we are now moving into article our item five article a 2.000 building and construction related fees section a two point zero zero two building permit fees by restating new subpart C to provide for site plan review fees amending section eight two point zero zero for

[2:07:55] miscellaneous permit fees by repealing and deleting subpart E customer service inspection for existing structures this is a permit for a site plan review we're currently not charging for this service and I'll let John or I'll get up in a minute and speak to that and the proposed fees would be at a Tier one valuation of $50 to your two valuation of $100 a Tier three valuation of $250 in a cost of service that ranges from $73 to $315 we expect the financial impact to be nine thousand $50 other cities Abilene is charging two hundred and fifty for a minor site plan and a regular site plan for five hundred dollars odessa's at five hundred dollars middlin does not have a fee Wichita Falls is charging $75 Round Rock is at $1,000 plus $200 per acre college station is at a 1.5 percent cost for the $600 minimum describe what a site plan review is and why there hasn't been a fee attached to this the site plan review has been part of the building permit review and so as part of submitting a building permit it you know what the building permit application looks like and looks at are the building details what the insides look like what the construction materials are the architectural kinds of details the site plan is the what the overview of the site is where the parking is located where they put the dumpster where the driveways are located so it's hand in hand with the building permit but one of the things we're trying to do with this is separate those two what most cities do is have a separate site plan review process the way we do it we don't allow a developer to come in the way we do it currently and submit a site plan for review without their whole building permit review package what is more typical in other cities is the developer can submit his site plan review while they're still working on

[2:10:00] the architects architectural plans and so this is part of that idea of separating the building permit from the site plan so that those applicants can go ahead and get their site plan reviewed even while they don't have the building plans done your 1 tier 2 and tier 3 those are based on valuation or our initial thought was just having one fee but then you know we have small projects that maybe you know building a thousand square foot building on a small lot versus say a Walmart that's that takes a lot more review and so those are just based on a breakdown of evaluations small projects would be the cheaper $50 fee the largest projects like a Walmart or a apartment complex would be the 250 Billy yes John what's the problem with the way we do it now you said it would typically be submitted with the building plans and everything all inclusive what what's the problem with a couple of issues with that one is that like I said you have to wait to submit your site plan for a review until all your building plans are done you basically have to submit it all as one package this would allow a developer to submit that site plan separately and get it reviewed while they're still working on their there are other plans it gives them basically a head start the other issue is right now since we don't charge for site plan we actually don't charge a building permit fee until they pick up their building permit so what we have is some developers will submit all of their building plans for a review we spend the hours and hours of review time telling them yeah everything's ok or here's some things you need to change we go through all of that process and then if they back out of the project we haven't gotten a dollar yet we spent all that time this won't address all of that issue because we still would only collect the building

[2:12:02] permit fee when they get their building permit but this would at least give us some ability to recoup some of the review cost that we have to do up front thank you so right now Tom go ahead please John well this helps simplify the process when somebody comes in or submit you says this is the barn or this is the building I want to build and then at this point we can come back as a city and say all right you're gonna need ABCDEF because I hear a lot of feedback where people are trying to build something they start in the process and it's it's multiple trips now it's gotten a lot better but it seems like number one this is a way to recruit some recoup some investment we have in manpower there but number two you could almost I'm willing to go with this if we almost have an outline or a you know a format for these people when you submit this this is what you're going to need to have to go ahead and get your permit I think that would help simplify the process if that's where this is going I'm not quite sure if it is yeah I mean the basic thing that it's doing is separating the site plan review from the building permit review both would still happen and people who want to do it the same as we do it today can still submit them all together like they do the same fee then as today no it would still be the additional fee for the site plan review that's something we have not ever charged a fee for but it does place a cost you know there is a cost of service that we've just never recuperated recouped before and so it either way you do it it would they would still be an additional fee of the 50 100 or 250 but it simplifies it in the sense that many developers are ready to go they've had their generally two different sets of people do you know one does the site plan and then the architects do the building plans and so developers were typically hire those two

[2:14:05] different folks they may be ready to go with the site plan and could get it through the review process and do all the back-and-forth that's necessary there even before the architectural plans are ready but since today we accept all that as one package if there are issues that crop up with the site plan it may be holding up a building permit when the building plans are already good and ready to go and so this gives them an earlier point in the process to get it in to us there be it not an instance where you approve the site plan and then in reviewing the building plan the site plan had to be redone because of some changes required in the building permit that's that would be very uncommon I won't say it hasn't happened I can think of at least one example where the interior dimensions of a building had to be expanded and so that adjusted the site plan that would would not result in a new site plan unless it was just you know they completely moved a building across the site but you know reorienting the building on aside or something might happen occasionally but less than a handful a year well then if we're asking for an additional fee because of the site plan although in the past the site plan was part of the fee with the building so reducing the building permit fees to accommodate those people who before it was all one fee for site plan and permit fee we are not we actually what was changed a couple of years ago was a way of doing that what we what we did was implement a fee of charging 10% of the building permit fee for the site plan review but that created some issues in terms of how that's going to work with our plan review software and so that's another reason that's separating them into two separate fees made more sense because of the way we we will be doing that with our software so people will be pretty

[2:16:08] confused when they come in this the next time if they're doing multiple projects in the city and before the building permit fee included the site plan review and now it won't yeah we will be presenting this at our development task force meeting later this month assuming it's approved and then we'll work with communicating that out to our frequent customers to let them know of the change what we typically have done in the past also is post a notice at our entrance there that tells people fees are changing they'll go into effect on such and such date and here are the different fees so we try to use two or three methods of getting the word out to folks are you saying about cities currently the Abilene Z Odessa is not Midland Wichita Falls currently separate site plan review fees from building permit fees yes yeah it's I would say the vast majority of them do it that way and that's that's what you see here Midland is the one that still does it with the zero fee is it really means that they included in the building permit review fee do I have questions for Jon comments there is one more piece and I don't know if there's there may not be other slots for that you'll notice in your background we were eliminating a couple of fees those are things that we no longer do that were pre-existing fees but it's a it's a service that's not required anymore and we we have not done these for years and so haven't charged any for years but it's just cleaning up the ordinance to remove that well it's it's just the customer service inspection fees for existing structures that's where we're inspecting fixtures and things this is actually a state requirement but now that's done privately by individuals it's not a service that the city offers what was that fee before based on a

[2:18:16] number of fixtures that fixtures thirty to forty two or a hundred and twenty dollars and for residential it was 32 flat fee that's all the permits and inspection fees okay so do we have a motion to accept the site plan fee proposal move to approve is presented I will second we have public comment you've Hampton aye I am against us I think you were on the right track there mayor this is there was no reduction in the original expense this this is not covered by insurance as would be the the ambulance runs or anything like that so it just goes right to the right to the people and if you're going to break it out then you should reduce the other and then put it on a one-year inspection to see if there it needs to be increased like it was on the last one thank you with a motion of further public comment anyone else there's been a motion and a second all in favor time for John Waite okay so just to clarify it's not a workload issue it's splitting it out technicality of what fees going where instead of like what Steve was saying building permit be site plan you're splitting it out was $75 for building permit is that correct well the building permit is based on valuation so it can vary from minimum fee of $35 to the county jail is $70,000 or something he's not reducing these numbers but it is a split out of service what it was

[2:20:18] all inclusive okay okay any other before I take a vote all in favor of this say aye aye opposed aye passes 5-2 would any of you like a break right now call the council back to order at 11:06 a.m. and we will start with item 6 article a 9.000 planning related fees by amending section a 9.00 for to provide for administrative adjustment fee amending section a 9.00 five fees for preliminary final Platts and variance fees and amending section a 9.00 7 miscellaneous planning fees by mending fees for street name change and release of easement and adding fees for urban design review appeal certificate of appropriateness and dis annexation is that a real word so we have several fees proposed to either change or add to the ordinance for planning so we'll go through them again by one so that you have time to ask questions and clarify any misunderstandings our current fee for zoning variance or adjustments for planning is $250 we're proposing a fee to separate these out one request for variance at $250 which is the current fee and a lesser cost for the request for administrative adjustment at $170 the cost of the service is 180 $33 and we expect a financial impact of eleven hundred twenty dollars so are we asking for $420 versus what's currently 250 no that's not my understanding I'll let mr.

[2:22:21] james answer that question though do you know doing a correct that's it that's not a financial impact to living 20s and negative 11:20 yeah thank you that was my highlight of the day I almost miss it we're actually nearly creasing our fighting yeah right now we just have one fee for both a variance and an adjustment adjustment is basically an administrative variance that staff is allowed to grant within vary type parameters but there are certain things we're allowed to grant that don't have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment so the ones that go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment would still be the 250 as it is today this would just create a lower fee of 174 those that can be approved by staff so it's not a you don't so it's it's purely a lowering of the fee for that one classification excellent compared comparison with other cities for Abilene Midland and wish to false love a cars shown on this line questions from Council does anybody have a question okay shall we move on to the next yes planning for a straight name change the current fee is $250 plus the cost of the signage we're proposing a fee of $500 plus the cost of the signage based on a cost of service of five hundred seventy eight dollars for the financial expected financial impact of five hundred dollars so we're guessing there may be about two per year who requests these street name changes and why would we allow or first of all who requests them in what would be the rules on requesting a street name it could be a developer we had a case a year two ago the previous plat adjacent had stubbed out a street just like a hundred foot long and gave it a name the developer who is tying into that Street wanted to name the street something differently so we had to do a street name change on that little section so

[2:24:23] that it all matched it could be somebody wanting to rename a street after you know in memorial to somebody and so they they can request that of City Council and so that those are the two most common business primarily depends questions comments next item planning fee for a release of easement the current fee is $300 with a proposed fee of five hundred dollars the cost of service is $618 we're expecting approximately four per year for a financial impact of eight hundred dollars what other cities are charging for that service and describe a release of easement property might have an easement across the property for a water line a sewer line electrical power lines those sorts of things and maybe the lawn has been moved or gone away and so this would release that easement it basically takes it off you can do that through a reap lat although that's a more complicated more expensive process this is a simpler process if all you're doing is is releasing that he's met this happen very I mean how many times did you expect this to happen in a year one or zero just a handful of times a year it could be when you know Suddenlink moves their lines from one part of a property to another and so they will then want to remove the easement across the property or the old line was that sort of thing the release of an easement and creating of a new easement is that all in the same fear so separate fee than if you asked for a release and then you asked for a new easement this would be separate but creating a new easement doesn't have to it doesn't necessarily have to go through the city unless it's

[2:26:27] part of a plat you can create an easement across your property for the benefit of a private utility without necessarily a review by the city questions comments from Council next step in design review with a we're currently not charging for this service the proposed fee is $125 with the cost of service of one hundred and thirty-eight dollars or expected financial impact of fifteen hundred dollars and here's what other cities are charging for that service describe urban design review this is a special review authorized by the zoning ordinance it's similar to a site plan but it's where we look at things like landscaping building materials colors those sorts of things that that normally for smaller projects is not regulated by the zoning ordinance but for projects typically those over twenty five thousand square feet it requires a separate urban design for those things this is something we've been doing for for a while but there's just never been a fee for it so it it's an extra service that we've been providing and so would someone have to pay a site fee as well as an urban design review fee yes because this is an this is a separate typically the kinds of things that the urban design review looks at are not provided with the site plan review a landscaping plan for example although a developer may put together a landscaping plan if they're doing landscaping of their own it's not required as part of our review as well as the architectural renderings of the building materials and colors and those sorts of things aren't required for the site plan review so these are additional things that have to be submitted and reviewed by staff well it's for any multifamily or any construction over 25,000 square feet or an addition of

[2:28:32] 10,000 square feet to a site that already has 25,000 square feet so it's it's really only for major major developments so why all of a sudden it's been done before with that one I guess before it's been inclusive in the building permit fee in the site review no this was something that's not has never been incorporated the cost of service has never been incorporated into any of those other fees it's it's purely a fee we've provided there I mean it's a service we've provided without any fee or cost recovery as as they mentioned earlier this this is the third year for us for our department and so we took a more comprehensive review of all these and in addition try to identify services we provide that have not charged a fee and so that one doesn't have to have this this urban design review well if you get a permit if they're bringing in a development over 25,000 square feet then yes it is required by the zoning ordinance so they would have to do this but again on any project that's 25,000 square feet or more we're talking at least hundreds of thousands of dollars of a project if not into the millions so you know you're Walmart in your projects like that and I say that just to say that $125 is not a huge cost to the kinds of projects that this applies to questions further questions comment next the next fee that is proposed is for appeals and amendments the current we're currently not charging for this service the proposed fee is $200 for the cost of service of $240 expected financial impact of $800 meaning we're expecting about four of these per year and again here what the other cities in our area are charging for this service this is another one of those we've never charged for although

[2:30:35] we we've implemented over the past few years more processes that have an appeal for example short-term rentals if they're approved or denied at Planning Commission you've seen a couple of appeals to you all right now if if anyone wants to appeal that denial or approval to you there's no additional fee to bring forward that appeal and this we just had had a basic fee for any of those appeals for amendments if the Planning Commission said we won't approve the str if that person who's requesting the str appeals the Planning Commission decision then they have to pay $200 in order to bring it to Council that's correct now the other thing this does that that would be the appeals there's also amendments right now for example if somebody comes to the Planning Commission for a conditional use or to you all for a special use and let's say a year or two later they decide one of those conditions they want to they want to remove or they want it to be rewarded right now that would simply be a brand-new conditional use or special used application which is 3/3 85 so for those circumstances this actually represents a reduction of the fee it would allow them to seek an amendment to one of those listing conditional uses for the lower fee of the 200 I understand the amendments but on the appeals the cost of service of two hundred and forty dollars for an appeal what is that what's included in that service that's basically the additional preparation and staff time for putting together their information to bring to the appellate body which in most of these cases would be bringing it to you all that preparation already have been done when you took it to the Planning Commission well it depends oftentimes issues are brought up at the Planning Commission and so we have to do some additional research to answer the questions that

[2:32:38] were raised in order to present that to you all and so that's typically what would what would be the additional work necessary revising the staff reports creating new exhibits and the PowerPoint those sorts of things this is the question for that as we go through this if we're looking at making a motion on this can we separate the appeals from the amendments would it be voting on its presented you can make a motion how you wanted and you could also make a motion that you didn't want one of these you know I guess I struggle with with a decision being made at the Planning Commission and then we charge citizen I do to come before us so but the amendment part like I said I understand agree with it's just the appeals that I will just note that I think it was all the other cities correct that we looked at except for Midland all charged a similar fee for those appeals and I will say that although this isn't the the main reason for this what we we have not had this problem yet although at one point we looked like there might be an issue with short-term rentals part of the issue is having somebody pay something to appeal to help avoid frivolous appeals of lots of things so I guess I would suggest if incline to lower that fee our preference would be to have a fee in place even if it was just like a $50 fee if for example I'm just using this as an example it's not necessarily something that's happened but if let's say the Planning Commission approved an STR and the people applying for it were granted that but somebody in the audience

[2:34:40] decided they wanted to appeal it anyone can appeal it doesn't just have to be the property owner specifically right because to me to me it would see if some if it's not someone's personal property that that there's an appeal about I don't think the property owner should have to pay for an appeal if it's somebody in the audience who doesn't like the decision of the Planning Commission that I think in a an appeal fee would be reasonable I think we could probably write it that way I think that is where the frivolous appeals come into play is when someone not associated with that appeals it because they don't like the decision and I would support yes Ling right now this would be applied to the property owner yes it would anyone who appeals right not the person saying I want to appeal but for example denies a short-term rental and the applicant wants to but in the case where it was accepted and the audience wanted to appeal it like we've seen this would be charged to either the property owner or if it's a citizen appealing and approval as we've written it how do you determine who you're gonna file the appeal so okay you have to actually submit an appeal - okay I'm suggesting that they appeal not be a fee not be charged if I'm the one appealing but if someone in the audience doesn't like the decision they want to appeal it that they would be charged so that would create quit stop the frivolous interference if you will maybe losing the mayor I believe that that's the one way that you know at least the person the citizen who's gonna appeal it we're not charging them but someone else who comes around and says okay I don't like it I'm gonna I'm gonna appeal their decision then let

[2:36:43] that cost me on there but not on the person who's who actually went out there and did it so I agree with the mirror on that I think that's a clarification that I think probably needs to be made because I was under the impression when I first read this that it was the person that filed the appeal that was going to pay the fee not necessarily the the owner of the other property no that's correct it's it's whoever is appealing okay we're trying to say is they're appealing a denial you wouldn't charge them I think that's almost offensive that if that the property owner have to pay for the appeal to see the judge yeah exactly yeah okay next they make a note of that because when we write when we ask for the motion we're gonna need to mayor it looks like there's significant consensus related that so I can just help during the motion process may be great okay next up is planning Platts the current fee for a plant preliminary fly is $400 a final plan is $445 in a replay is $350 we're proposing a fee for plots whatever kind at $275 with the first variance fee of 125 dollars in additional variances to be $75 per variance after that first variance well go back to that page and so let's say then would almost every property owner the person filing for the plat would end up paying the 275 plus 125 and and perhaps another 75 or 75 or 75 so the two 75 plus 125 is 400 so the the idea here is that in the past we've calculated the cost of service for a plant just an average based on all the

[2:38:45] plants but we know that a plat many of our plants come in without any variances they're not asking for a different street with their they're not asking for whatever the variety of variances that you can ask for so what this does is actually reduce the fee for those plots where there are no variances and those are much simpler to process on staffs time and so it would reduce them for those the and the reason we set the fees where we did is we also get Platts with a single variance and so for those the fee wouldn't be changing it would still be the 400 the only plants that would see an increase are those that are asking for multiple variances now we don't get a whole lot of those but we've seen some plots with three four five variances and each of those variances takes time additional time to research and provide the information necessary for the Planning Commission and then you all to make a decision on whether or not to grant that variance so it's it's reducing the fee for those simple plots that in the past have really paid too much in terms of the cost of service but it's making the cost of service applicable to those that create and that additional work through multiple variances could you go back to that previous slide on the proposed fee where you have a replant what would that be due to would it not be due to in a variance Oh a replant is simply when you're planting a piece of property that's already been planted so for example if if I have a planted lot that maybe it's an acre and I want to split it into two okay just sell off you know half acre and a half acre that would be a replant and part of that was just simplifying it these fees are also close and the cost of service doesn't vary that much that we thought it was just simpler to have one fee across the board for all the different types of plants and you'll note here that the cost of

[2:40:50] service is much where the proposed fee is much less than the cost of service actually would work out to be questions for the questions or comments okay next up is this a certificate of appropriateness with a current fee of $100 or 300 300 $85 depending on how the ordinance is applied the proposed fee would be $200 with the cost of service of two hundred eighty eight dollars and a financial impact expected of $500 what's a certificate of appropriateness Persinger a certificate of appropriateness is is basically what it's called when you get approval to make changes to a historically designated property so if it has historic zoning through the city and it requires the design and historic review Commission the D HRC to review say you're changing out the windows in a historic building those have to go to the D HRC for review and approval that they meet the historical nature of the property and so this one's a little confusing in that we currently charge $100 that hundred dollar fee was actually inadvertently removed a few years ago so what we actually should be charging is the 385 we've continued to charge the 100 that is listed on our fee schedule but we only realized through this review process that the hundred dollars was not still in the ordinance so basically what we were wanting to do is reinsert that fee into the ordinance but with the proposed fee of 200 there's a certificate of appropriateness often

[2:42:55] apply to something other than historic buildings because one of the things that if it doesn't is the fine is that it all right cost an arm and a leg to redo a historic building and many things if it's really a registered historic building you can't change it anyway because it's a registered building this would only apply to properties that the City Council has designated historic so for example if it has a National Register designation or a state historic designation unless the City Council has adopted historic zoning on the property then this this feat would not apply this also doesn't apply to there's the general review of things in the river corridor for example or the downtown as part of that River corridor review this does not apply to those this particular fee only applies to historic property historically designated properties there's eclis those properties are designated because the property owner requested the zoning overlap in most cases yes I really haven't here she was people for us charging any additional fees to people in the historic district because it costs I'll repeated it costs an arm and a leg to redo historic building and what we don't want to do is to put up more obstacles and costs for redoing historic buildings that can't make someone start to look at it and go it's just not worth it John is this this the cost to take this to the DA HRC is this this proposed fee is is that is that what it is yeah that's the cost for the staff research and putting the other staff reports and their research to present to entity HRC I can't support it the only fact that remains I think on those that hasn't been mentioned is typically if you if you request and receive a historic

[2:44:58] overlay zoning on your property then you do get a tax abatement of some sort from the city is that correct Tina not that I'm aware of I'm not aware that that's only historic tax credits or something like that but you change that was what when I was in planning so I've been a claim on our tax refund for historical properties if you're proposing that we can talk Rick well I actually am a supporter of that up again encouraged that was the reason the Zoning went in place beginning to try and encourage I would point that out that this one is not a new fee we are currently charging $100 for it and we are just increasing our fee in line with the cost of service and not actually even recouping all of that well it's never been charged 385 has never been charged that all you've ever charged is a hundred dollars whether it was in the code of the ordinance or not right yes and I just pointed that out if if your action today was to deny this request the fee would actually go to 385 so if we accept this it is to say we support a hundred dollars and do away with the code that currently says 385 well what I would urge you to do is add the fee and then you can decide if you prefer to keep it at a hundred or the proposed fee of two hundred or even zero whatever your preference is but we need to add this into the code one way or the other so that we don't start charging the 385 that makes sense so you're asking us to change it from what currently it's 385 down to two hundred technically yes that's what's in the ordinance today we've only been charging a hundred correct and so what we're really asking for is clarification what

[2:47:03] do you think we should be charging if you make no decision today we would take that as a you're okay with the current ordinance and we would start charging the 385 so so we need a direction so what's in the ordinance right now the 385 yes correct okay it's not been charged that was only because inadvertently that was taken out a few years ago our fee schedule has still had the hundred dollars we didn't realize that the hundred dollars was removed a few years ago until we were researching for this particular feat change what he's saying we can go zero one hundred or two hundred correct it does allow that the abatement is allowed up to a twenty percent for the zoning and up to a fifty percent if you present a project so say that again Rick please manual tax abatement what's historic overlay is established that designate property is eligible for local tax abatement benefits of twenty percent of annual city taxes tax break for renovation you can go up to 50% based on that and that's what's in the planning Flyers so I guess that's given through that to your zone well I think it typically has been when I was involved with it's something that that abatement is processed through the tax appraisal office once it gets the designation than it is eligible and the tax appraisal office would actually apply it so that may be something that we need to look at and see if they're actually okay next session the current fee is $0 with a proposed fee of $600 in a cost of service of six hundred I mean pardon me eight hundred ninety seven dollars we apparently expect about one of these per year doesn't happen very often

[2:49:05] and other cities do not charge for this service so currently they're in the city and they're asking to get out of the city yes yeah we only have one example of this in at least that we have record of and that was when the county asked to have part of their lands removed from the city again as we were looking at things we do that we don't charge for this was one that popped up I don't know that it'll happen again in the next ten years we thought we would just suggest a fee just in case it does take a significant amount of staff time to prepare to meet all the state law requirements for a dis annexation and so in case it happens again we thought it would be best to have a fee in place any comment move on to the next how do you want to do this mirror I mean there are some council people that are not satisfied with some of the presentations most of them are okay with me but I just like to know what what direction we want to go on this what I would recommend that we do is if there's any out of the presentation that we've seen today I'd like those pulled out separately and voted on separately and then what's left in the bag would be voted on you could certainly do that what I was noticing there in the discussion was of course there was consensus related to the appeals not being charged to the property owner and then the discussion over whether or not that should be 0 100 or 200 that seemed to be the only points of conflict then I noticed as far as consensus overall with the council so you could do that in one motion if if you can get consensus related to the second fee what we'll do is do three different votes we're going to do the

[2:51:11] first one on the appeals and so if a council member would like to make a motion to not charge a fee if the property owners submitting an appeal would not have to pay a fee that could be a motion let me make a small correction the original applicant because they might not so someone would like to make that motion I will make that motion okay and is there a second second is there public comment let's clarify that so I understand so we're saying when there's an appeal there is no no fee dip regardless of who it is original what we are saying is the original applicant if they appealed the decision they have no cost but if somebody in the audience appeals it then there's a fee to stop the frivolous charge frivolous appeals that's what I understood the presentation was so that's why I was confused the presentation was no matter who appealed there was a fee okay with that all in favor of the motion say aye motion passes 7-0 then the second item that we should take up is this last item which there is a question about whether the fee should go up to 200 if it should be the hundred as we are charging today or whether it should be the 385 as it is written in the ordinance is that properly stated okay so with that is there a motion on the floor on that item I'll make a motion that the fee should stay at $100 any public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor

[2:53:14] of the current $100 fee say aye aye any opposed motion passes 6 1 then what we would do is taking those two out of the conversation then we would have a motion to approve all other items presented for fee increases as presented I should say so someone would like to make that motion time I see you shake roof okay a second all in favor aye any opposed passes 7-0 number F no sorry 7-7 article a D point 0 0 0 planning related fees section a 9 0 0 7 miscellaneous planning fees by adding a publication fee for newspaper advertisement and so you're on I'm I'm up to date I'm waiting for my slides [Laughter] so this is a newspaper legal notice fee the current fee is $0 we're proposing a fee of one hundred and twenty-five dollars our cost of service ranges from one hundred twenty three dollars two hundred sixty eight dollars depending on the number of notices that we have at one time that we published in the newspaper the financial impact is expected to be six thousand eight hundred and seventy five dollars who's paying for this feed this would be the applicant on a case that requires notice notification in the newspaper certain

[2:55:18] plants rezoning are the most common examples this is something that's never been calculated in the cost of service for those applications but we didn't want to one option we considered was just increasing the cost of a rezoning for example or a plan to incorporate this but not all of those necessarily requiring their spared notifications so by separating it as a separate fee only those people who are going through a process that by state law requires a notice in the newspaper would have to pay this fee how many of those do we see give or take it could be as few as one or two up to seven or eight that's one reason the cost of service is different because you know newspaper notification twice as long isn't necessarily twice as expensive again I'll just for background information one of the things we looked at was passing on the actual cost to the applicant but that gets tricky because we don't always know the cost at the time they're applying we'd have to calculate it later and collect that and we thought the minimal fee of 125 which is basically the low end of the cost of service would be simpler and more predictable from the applicants standpoint so before did we take the actual cost of the newspaper notice and apply that out of the fee that we are a charge them for replanting or no this has been completely subsidized by the general tax fund its has never been incorporated into any of the other fees is a question or comment from counsel okay so with those go back to the cities so in these cities then that cost of newspaper advertising is calculated into their

[2:57:24] replac fee for example yes but as I mentioned earlier in any of these cities if you're doing a replant that does not require a newspaper notification you're basically paying for that because they've averaged it across all of the plants so the way we've proposed it only those folks who are doing something that require the newspaper notification would have to pay it rather than averaging it across all applicants okay all right okay so with that then do I have there's no questions or comments do I have a motion motion to approve make it is there any public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor aye any opposed passes 7-0 okay item F consider ratifying custody C's approval of the bid secured by a EP Texas North Company a EP from Crossland construction company incorporated in the sum of five hundred eighty two thousand eight hundred nine for construction of utilities and other infrastructure within the seneschal business and industrial park pursuant to the development agreement by in-between causa DC and a EP authorized by resolution of the City Council adopted on January 9 2018 Robert mr. Stephen Europe good morning first of all remind me never to go behind again at seven parts councils I'm sure familiar with this project this is

[2:59:36] related to the AAP new facility out at the industrial park they purchased 52 plus or minus acres from us in phase 2 then industrial park at a cost of about 1.1 million dollars on October 11th of 2016 contract the sales contract requires the cosa DC provide all utilities and infrastructure to this to their site that includes Street access water sewer everything except electrical they're going to provide that themselves and because a EP is under a fairly tight timeframe they they need to be in their building by September of 2018 so cosa DC approved a development agreement with a EP on December 13th for a EPA to provide the infrastructure under their contract as a modification to their contract and at the time it was at a cost not to exceed $750,000 and council then approved that a ratified that On January 9th I believe the proposed improvements that we're talking about include only those required to support a EP and we're referring to that as phase 2.1 the remainder of the improvements would be done on as we get the economic development administration grant final approval which is in process now and that would be phase two point two originally staff received an initial proposal from a peace contractor for 3.1 million dollars that included all of the drainage improvements I'll show you an exhibit in a minute that it kind of breaks down what we're talking about so staff then requested two additional proposals proposal number two included only the drainage improvements required to complete a channel crossing of gateway drive and that came in at one point two four million and in proposal three excluded all drainage improvements and that came in which were the by far

[3:01:39] the the highest cost items and they came in at a cost of five hundred eighty two thousand deferring all of that drainage to the future project and our idea there is that we would generally get a better unit cost by including it in a larger project so if we include it with the second phase we expect that we would get a lower lower bid amount and we would be competitively bidding that to give you an idea the areas that we're talking about the green area shown on this exhibit is the drainage improvements and that includes detention and drainage deepening of the channel it also includes a culvert crossing in this location under gateway Drive and then some additional drainage downstream and improvements the second option that we looked at let the limited drainage and you see there was only doing the drainage improvements from from this this point to this point but also including that channel [Music] and then of course the third option the 582 thousand dollar options would be just what's shown they're sort of in turquoise which would be the street improvements the and the underground utilities and again staff is recommending approval of that third option and that is what cosa DC approved their meeting last week meaning the 580 teeth the 580 mm yes ma'am thank you questions for Bob second any public comment no public comment we'll take a vote on favor of the five hundred and eighty-two thousand dollar proposal item three say

[3:03:43] I consider adoption of a city of San Angelo policy governing the use of city property for film production and authorizing the city manager to update the policy from time to time as necessary mara that one's mine the San Angelo Convention and Visitors Bureau they've been working towards having the city of San Angeles certified as a film for any community and as through the Texas Film Commission we do have damn bass here she's a vice president for the CBB to talk a little bit more about this and what this means for a community as well and I was really hoping for a proclamation for the shortest agenda item I did want to share a little bit as I think I've shared with you paths in the past the Texas film friendly designation is done through the governor's office at the Texas film in the Texas Film Office and over a hundred cities in the state of Texas had this designation and I the requirements for that include a permit giving them at the the film office photography which I've been working on for the past six to eight months and then also attending a workshop I've done the workshop did that back in I think June July timeframe and then we submitted the permit the permit that is here is something that is a sample that the Film Commission actually gives out to other cities so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel so this is already something and they have already seen it and had made some suggestions some changes and corrections on it so it's it's really kind of a standard operation procedure for the film film commission what this does also for us is this puts us on the radar with the Film Commission when people are looking from out of the state majority of the time wanting to film in Texas this puts us in that in

[3:05:47] that group of people they will send leads to based on the needs and so this again is an opportunity to bring heads and minutes put people into our community spending dollars and then also gives us that brand awareness of who we are and what we have available here in San Angelo it sounds like a wonderful opportunity so this is do I have a motion to adopt this policy governing they use the city property for film production and authorizing the city manager to update the policy from time to time thank you Thanks thanks for waiting around - okay item H consider resolution establishing a policy related to the process for appointment to city boards committees and commissions when set appointments results in the requirement of a resignation from service on another city board committee or Commission are you on Brian I am there was some desire to just address this that you know every once in a while conflict could come up currently cosa DC is the only board that that in the ordinance there is a conflict but it could be established with another board in the future so this would just establish some rules of decorum for how we treat you know how each council member each other councilmember and their a point employment process any comments or questions for Bryan concerning this item so is this something we take a vote on or is okay so do I have a motion to consider the resolution establishing this policy a second all in favor aye approve seven zero we will now at 11:53 go into closed session executive session

[3:07:54] on the provision of government code title five open government ethics subtitle a open government chapter five five one Open Meetings subchapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings be open under the following sections so section a section five five 1.07 to deliberations about real property regarding 703 South Chadbourne here I need about ten minutes probably and that's that okay so we'll take a 15-minute break twelve noon and we apologize for being so short example for those that went before us I'd make a motion that we approve the first amendment to the commercial lease agreement with the historic orient Santa Fe Depot Inc for property located at 703 South Chadbourne to provide for a term that ends June 15 2008 eeen second follow-up and administrative issues items discussed an executive session which we've just done consideration of approving various board nominations the construction Board of adjustments and appeals david Jacobo at-large to a second term ending February 2020 do I have a motion to exclude all right a second all in favor aye a passes 7-0 and then items C announcements and generation of future agenda items Lane Lucy Tommy Tom I need uh I would like to hear something from Shan on the status and the purpose of the Vendetta machine how it's working and plan I've had lots of requests on that so I think we need to retouch base on number one why and how that was purchased and the purpose and kind of the status as we go forward keeping the right amount of people to

[3:09:56] work and I'll break that machine it also suggests that we we take a look at having a town hall meeting sometime in the late April early May time frame to discuss Bell Street and the improvements I would like to know what I was going to say at one point we talked about creating an ordinance I believe or having a discussion about the 18-wheelers using like Southland or College Hills or 14th Street as cutaways I'm getting a lot of comments from citizens about too many big heavy 18-wheelers going through the neighborhoods so I'd like some comments on to that theorists I get several calls they're using lots of that up there around forty fourth four there there's a training school that's using district two as a lot of their turns and anyway I concur with that 100% please okay great all right with that then I will entertain a motion for adjournment if we adjourn Ruth okay all in favor I'm sure happy 7-0 and we dismiss at 12:03

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=ZLlCG7LNbfU