San Angelo City Council 2022 6-7-22

[0:00:00] people in prayer and pledges and we have today our police chaplain lorenzo hatch here to lead us in prayer and in the pledges thank you please bow your head gracious heavenly father you remind us that we are the salt of the earth and that a little leaven works through the whole batch lord grant wisdom and right judgment to our counsel and empower them to be leaven for our community which inspires all of us to make our city better and more unified lord we know how hard they work for our community and we are ever grateful for the work they do bless them and their families lord we also ask that you bless all of our city employees especially those of our fire department and police department protect them from all harm and lastly kind and gracious lord please send some more beautiful rain to our community we ask this in all things through your most sacred name amen i pledge allegiance republic for which it stands one nation honor the texas flags [Music] this happens on a very rare occasion where we have no proclamations or recognitions today so this is an unusual city council meeting so we will now go into our public comment issues or concerns not on the regular agenda may be raised by the public at

[0:02:02] this time citizens should speak from the podium address all comments to the dias begin by stating their name and address or single member district number and limit their remarks to less than three minutes do i have anyone in the audience today who would like to come forward and offer public comment this is going to be a real unusual meeting today okay please come forward yes you raised your hand well just come to the microphone if you wouldn't mind and you're going to tell me your name and tell me where you live and then tell me what you would like to say today my name is anne helm i live at 26 briargrove lane um i wanted to just make a few comments about what i understand the council might be considering and that is regarding not providing maintenance for the restrooms in martin luther king park martin luther king park is a is a park for the children and the families together let me just stop real quick because we do have a martin luther king thing on the agenda today can she continue to speak no we'll take her public comment when that item is read okay so let me explain this so on the agenda today we have the agenda item to approve the work on the martin luther king restrooms and at that point in time if you would please come forward and offer your comments i would appreciate it thank you i kind of thought i was out of order but i didn't know well you're out of order sit down girl any other public comment okay with none we will move into our consent agenda does council have any items they'd like to pull from the consent agenda larry karen item i

[0:04:04] item i harry no man tom no ma'am all right with that may i have a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of item i so move so mu by harry seconded by by larry okay with that any public comment seeing none we will ask for a vote of city council on all items except i all in favor say aye the motion passes 5-0 we will now go to item i and item i is consider awarding task order number five under es-06-19 professional services rfq to kim lee horn and associates incorporated for the amount of two million one hundred and ten thousand five hundred for engineering design services of cristoval road from paint rock road to south chadburn street and we have patrick here to answer questions and discuss the item please patrick thank you i have four questions for you yes ma'am first of all we're multiple bids on this fee solicited so we haven't we have a general contract through our engineering services department for professional services for engineering firms so we have a list of firms that are pre-approved with that list we work down it as projects come up and then we we solicit a scope and fee from those firms and then award a contract and a task order to those individual firms so they are already pre-vetted and pre-approved with general contracts and then we add a task order as projects come up given that how was this figure of two million one hundred and ten thousand five hundred dollars determined so what we did is we worked with kimberly horn on on the full scope of what this project would entail so we we got with kimly they're very familiar with the decent type of grants that we're looking

[0:06:06] at for this particular project so working those components into the design kind of gave them an advantage in selecting them and working through that scope and fee with with this particular firm so working with kimberly we knew that they had the capacity to perform this in the time frame that we needed as well as the the knowledge and the experience and the experience that we've had on prior projects with kimley we felt like that they could turn this around in the timeframe that we needed so the fee is linked to scope of work yes ma'am and so what is the total scope of work the total scope of work is going to be a full redesign of the roadway including curbing curb and gutter drainage components a replacement of the water and sewer facilities as well as pedestrian elements including a shared use path and sidewalks some road widening down pin rows all of that again to meet the terms of the dsip grant that we're going to be applying with in conjunction with this project so i understand that this is preliminary to application for the grant that you have to do it in advance of that application yes ma'am the grant is called a shovel ready grant which means we have to be ready to go to work when that grant's awarded so we have a one year time frame from the time that that grant is awarded to the time that we have to start construction on that so there hence the the time frame of getting this going and getting this this designed and on the shelf pending that we don't get the grant this year we will reapply for multiple years until we can get it if not we'll back the scope off but the design will still be be valid for this project we appreciate you soliciting grants certainly so the fee is a percentage of the total cost of the project is that correct it's not a percentage per se but that's typically how we work we usually work within the eight to ten percent of the total projects cost of the expected project cost so the expected project cost might be 21 million 21 million dollars and if

[0:08:09] you're not awarded the grant do you intend to go forward or just reapply for another grant uh we well we will continue to apply for grants up until the time that we feel like there's not a grant available for this scope of project at that point we would take the the design that's already taken pair it back whether that's pedestrian elements or roadway elements or design or drainage elements pair it back as well we can and still have a good product product to meet our budget that we do have to continue this project this project of this grant we rated very very highly on it two years ago there's one little issue that kept us from getting up but we were rated very highly on it and this year the grant is about resiliency and because the goodfell air force base depends on this infrastructure to ensure that they're up and running on water and sewer it's a pretty important resilience project so thank you for your complete explanation yes ma'am i appreciate it harry i make one quick comment for those people that were not on council five plus years ago this is a project that we looked at uh more than five years ago and i'm glad to see that we're coming to the spot where we're going to be able to start construction those young men from goodfellow then will have access all the way into the city both pedestrian and bicycles and they can come down crostoval road over to glenmore park and then up into the city so i'm glad to see that we're as a pot where we're going to actually start looking at uh the engineering on this well yeah we're waiting for the grant though so i mean let's not let's not mislead anybody unless the grant is approved this will be a delayed project just to be sure everyone understands that okay any further questions from council with none thank you patrick we'll take a vote all in favor of approving item i

[0:10:13] say i wait a minute emotion first oh well instead of voting why don't i have a motion so moved by harry seconded by karen public comment on this item seeing none we'll take a vote all in favor say aye motion passes five zero we will now move into the regular agenda you'll comments regarding items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above applicants proponents and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit their remarks to less than five minutes item a is discussion and guidance regarding a proposal by basic id iq of san angelo for 85 284 and 66 cents to replace and repair columns and make other minor repairs on 14 officers quarters and other buildings at fort concho and authorizing the city manager to create negotiate and execute an agreement and let's just start with the following that money's already budgeted so it's not asking for those funds today it's just asking for a contract to get to the funds to get the work done is that correct bob good morning mayor good good morning glad to have you here that is correct the money exists in a fiscal 2022 capital account i would also point out that it would also leave us some money to take care of other things this year probably next so the money is there and it's a good deal staff believe it's a proper fee and while we would love to do it ourselves we have been perpetually understaffed now for almost two years and there's no way we can get to this in a timely manner given the cost of materials and labor these days we feel this is a very good deal and we would highly recommend its approval do i have questions for bob from council move to approve is presented harry move to approve do i have a second karen has seconded the motion um any public comment

[0:12:16] seeing none we'll take a vote all in favor say aye aye motion passes five zero thank you bob thank you and good day item b is consider approving a memorandum of understanding between the san angelo area foundation and the city of san angelo to facilitate the construction of restroom facilities at dr martin luther king jr memorial park and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents carl euron good morning mayor council we're asking council's authorization to give the city manager authorization to finalize the negotiations of an agreement with the area foundation to construct restrooms at martin luther king jr memorial park as you may recall council authorized or signed a resolution back in october that uh supported the naacp's application to apply for some grants and raise funds for the restrooms they had succeeded in getting raising the funds they approach the area foundation to to work with them to receive the funds and to work the project this um this mou that's in the item that we're asking council authorization to move forward with is similar to the one that was done with the fort concho barracks three and four for construction of those very similar to that so it's it's a model that works and we recommend approval of this item mr matt lewis is here and i think he may want to speak to the item as well and i'll be here for questions matt please come forward mayor and council matt lewis with the san angelo area foundation and we are excited to be able to hopefully move this project forward and look forward to getting the mou wrapped up and so we can begin the the project it's kind of the chicken or the egg the the

[0:14:20] great news is is the naacp and shirley and our community has has rallied to raise the 250 000 that was required in your prior resolution so we're holding those funds and we're ready to get the project moving so that we can make it happen as soon as possible it's awesome that uh in looking through some of the grant paperwork i noticed that there are uh 16 parks in our community with restrooms and there's 17 parks without restrooms and there's five with porta-potties and you know either don't have restrooms or have restrooms but we all know those porta-potties aren't the most exciting thing in the world and it's wonderful to see that one of those parks that's in the middle uh with porta-potties that is uh well used by our community would be moved up into that category of 16 now 17 public parks that would have restrooms and i applaud that and i look forward to being able to work with the city on getting this mou done so that we can begin the project quickly any questions of me any questions for matt none thank you matt any further public comment on this or questions for carl white [Music] we'll have public comment on the item after we take a vote so this is really questions for carl at this point if there are none then we will actually take a motion in a second and then you'll come forward and offer comment okay thank you michelle so moved by harry second goodbye tom any public comment on this motion please come forward michelle good morning mayor and city council my name is michelle grooms reed my address is 5014 westway drive

[0:16:24] 76904 and as a citizen of san angelo who uses the martin luther king park even though i don't live in the area as i go to other parks in san angelo i just wanted to address something that i saw here uh let me read it to you the restrooms will be some similar to others we have concrete walls steel doors fixtures so on so on vandalism does occur in all restrooms mostly graffiti other things clogged toilets urinals so on and so on here are recommended criteria for addressing vandalism in the restroom should evangelism occur in the restrooms and then it's offering some days that it would be closed so that things could happen my concern was where it said should fixtures and hardwoods be damaged on the restroom the community will provide be providing funding for the needed replacement parts and i wanted the the council to kind of consider that how would you implement that when there's all of us in the san angelo using the the facility when you say you're going to ask the community to fund are you talking about the whole city is going to uh all the citizens every community will be responsible for this that's my question i was just kind of curious about that um because the whole community helped raise the money we had churches we had businesses we had people personal uh donations that were made it wasn't just even though the unit of the the unit 6219 of san angelo naacp headed it we still had the whole community to come and to raise those funds so i thought it was interesting that we had that and i realized that this is as i was told like a partnership of the city and a private unit uh unit

[0:18:30] to build these restrooms and now you this will be like a mirror for other restrooms that are coming so you might want to consider how are you going to do that you know if vandalism occurs it doesn't mean someone from the community did it it could have come from anywhere anyone could come and do that all right thank you so much for the public comment i know there's about half a dozen people out there please come forward we've seen no public comment okay i am shirley spears and i'm here today representing uh the san angelo naacp my uh home is located in single member district five so i'm also here to talk about this issue with the vandalism attachment that's part of this mou so the mou is one thing and we believe that we do need to move forward with getting the area foundation engaged to take care of getting the restrooms installed we have been working on this as a unit since 2019 trying to draw attention to the fact that there were no restrooms at martin luther king park and that for more than 20 years there had been no restrooms there i was reminded in nearly every occasion that i spoke to the council about the difference between a neighborhood park and a community park and i was also reminded that the criteria to get restrooms was not a part of what martin luther king jr memorial park would be a part of because it was a neighborhood park and even though i am clearly informed and i certainly know the difference between the word community and neighborhood i am puzzled that now in this vandalism attachment to this mou the word community is used in the instances as ms reed just mentioned that should there be damage to hardware

[0:20:34] and things of that nature number one i know that this is a partnership uh i think there's only been maybe one or two other occasions where something similar to this has happened in the city of san angelo and it was our intent originally to move forward with other 7 of those 17 mat to help them get restrooms as well but because we could not get any financial support from the city i am not personally nor is the naacp personally in a position to go out and raise 250 000 times 17 to allow a community to have restrooms we feel that it is really discriminatory that no other park in the city no other park in the city has this criterion associated with it in terms of what happens when vandalism occurs you clearly point out that vandalism does occur in a park we know that and we know that recently right up before easter there were those porta-potties were burned to the ground but we also know that that wasn't necessarily residents of that community and so we want you all to totally disregard that attachment for vandalism and treat the martin luther king park as it needs to be treated we've done our part we raised over 250 000 without any assistance from the city and we expect you as our representatives to remove that uh attachment that speaks to vandalism and requires the community to cover the cost thank you thank you shirley further public comment [Music] if you do please come forward [Music] state your name your smd area yes ma'am you're you're here again thank you come on and helm 2626 briar grove lane district step one um i would like

[0:22:35] also for that uh the agreement to be the attachment to be removed vandalism that occurs in any city park has to be addressed by enforcement of our laws against vandalism and that park would be no different the we have a police department that is responsible for maintaining order and petty crime is something that they need to address at all parks if it should occur they should investigate it and stop it and bring those responsible to account for what they've done and pay for it but it should not be a an event that causes people in that neighborhood or in the whole community that raised funds for the park to come up with funds to repair it thank you anne do i need to repeat anything we got it sherry weiner 2606 jan drive i'm also a member of the naacp here in san angelo i just want to address um our concerns or my concerns for just a couple of things that we'll be looking at i guess um the one thing is that there seems to be punishment for vandalism but it's not the vandals that will be punished now i think you know you mentioned closing uh the restrooms for repairs and and evaluating the vandalism that's perfectly reasonable but then it's it just sounds like punishment down here repeated offenses will result in shortened opening times and longer periods of closure and that just again it sounds like punishment for

[0:24:39] the families that will be using it um the other thing is how do you michelle mentioned this how do you define community who is the community that is going to be punished and who is the community that's going to pay for it thank you very much thank you good morning mayor and members of the council and everyone i'm dr gary jenkins i am the president of the board of directors of adac the alcohol drug addiction council of the concho valley i stand in support of the naacp and the efforts that they have undertaken to get bathrooms built here in the city i am in direct opposition respectfully of having this uh vandalism clause as part of the of the memorandum of understanding i would like to find out who is the community how have you identified the community in response to paying for the damage that may possibly be done i look at the park as any other city property to me someone already mentioned we have police officers that handle that should vandalism occur we also have city property what happens to other city property when it is vandalized if it's in vandalized do you hold the community whatever that is that definition is do you hold that community responsible or do you hold the people who commit the crime responsible and i would like to see that clause stricken from the agreement for the simple reason i think it is

[0:26:41] unfair i think it is an insult and i think that it doesn't do justice to the people who worked hard to get this done so i thank you and i hope you'll consider that thank you thank you teresa do you want to add comment on the word community it's the legal document i think you all put together so if you want to address that well i just want to clarify that the memorandum itself is just it is just about construction of the bathroom and then the additional document in there i'm viewing more as a policy on how vandalism is going to be addressed and i don't see that that's any different than how we address vandalism at any of our parks i mean i moved here with small children and there were numerous times we went to the park and the bathroom was either closed permanently or closed temporarily because something had happened in the bathroom so the memorandum that you're approving today is just for the construction and it is just between us and the area foundation this other document if you want me to incorporate it i'll need direction to do that but um since this is not a bathroom that was installed directly by the city i'm assuming the community is the same people who raised the money in the first place to to install this bathroom so just to be clear what we're approving today is the mou with the area foundation to build it is that correct that's all we're proving today that's correct and i see the rest and i'm wrong then somebody please correct me as instructional to staff on how we're going to address vandalism which appears again to be very much how we address vandalism just generally with our public restrooms we're not pulling out one restroom one area town and treating it differently than we do any of our other restrooms in our parks is that correct i'll let carl address that more directly than myself but i know that we do close bathrooms okay danielle so there's been discussion of community park versus neighborhood park neighborhood parks by quick definition in the neighborhood

[0:28:43] so if you have children people to go visit the park they can actually walk home if they have to go to the restroom facilities so the city doesn't build restrooms in those in those parks the cost associated with it is pretty prohibitive but not only that also the maintenance of it so if you have 17 parks for instance that we heard a while ago that they're looking at putting restrooms in those parks we're looking at 200 4 000 per year just on maintenance in those areas so our concern when we look at that it's not discriminatory you know i hate to hear that it's not about discrimination it's about looking at a model perhaps moving forward if a a group comes together and they want to raise funds to build a park in an area where we had no intention of building a park i mean a restroom who's responsible there's damage that's the question graffiti that's not a problem go in there take care of that toilet so being clogged up we can take care of that stuff but if somebody goes in there and knocks down fixtures for instance who's responsible for that in a park that the city had no intention of building in the first place but yet would provide maintenance for that and part of the partnership will provide maintenance so that's a big question is who takes care of that part of it because there is a cost associated with damage and that's the only issue really that needs to be addressed here and we will take direction from city council moving forward as far as how the remainder of it will be negotiated but i just wanted to make sure that that part of it was addressed so what just to be clear all we're approving today council is the memorandum of understanding to create a contract between the area foundation and the city of san angelo to build the facility that is all we're doing today we are not approving today the operating slash maintenance piece of that contract today that's separate is that correct or not we just need clarification yeah that's not part of the memorandum with the area foundation

[0:30:45] so that is it can be used as direction because you're addressing it you can tell us this is how you want to address vandalism at the parks or at this particular park or this particular restroom but the agreement that we're approving today is just an agreement between us and the area foundation to build the restrooms teresa would not have to come back to council yes okay thank you for being patient with all this conversation so please offer us your public comment elaine welty 2506 sweet briar drive i'm in uh precinct five and we're talking about the the vandalism and that is a concern i know ms hassie smith ran on a platform of fighting petty crimes and the vandalism would be in that in the city i would expect to to work towards that fighting the petty crimes also when the community has raised the money it's like they've donated this property to the city and even though the city didn't pay for it or authorize it necessarily it's now the city's property and the city's responsibility to care for thank you thank you very much for the public comment good morning council and everyone um my name is sally ayana i live in the the uh 124 precinct and also in the area where martin luther king park is and i just wanted to say i would like for that to be removed i

[0:32:47] know you're saying constantly that this should not this is only just to see what you all will think about it our representative is not here to even help us to get you all to understand and maybe she might not be for it or against but i wanted to say that the naacp has fought for so many things in the city and for our rights for our um for being discriminated against and now to think about toilets in a city and uh mr uh venezuela you mentioned that the city didn't ask for the martin luther king park to be there is is that what i'm understanding i said the restroom no i mean the actual part because you're not you're not taking um a stand on helping us to make our city beautiful i was on the on the committee for make san angelo beautiful keep san angelo beautiful but yet y'all don't want to help us to keep it beautiful by having martin luther king park uh to have a bathroom in it uh it takes me back to a time that i experience outhouses and that potty toilet that you all have all over the city y'all are saying it like it's a big thing to have one there but i'm sure there are some that don't have it i don't know if you all have ever used uh uh outhouse but that's what it reminds me of just have a real beautiful park and then you're gonna have a outhouse out there i think we need to have the bathrooms built and not have all these rules that's going to y'all didn't think about rules at these other parks but now you're

[0:34:49] thinking about rules to put on it i saw an article on on a definition of outhouses and and it was not good the way it said that you would have to make sure you have leaves to take with you and it went on and on about things but today it's so important that not only we have the bathrooms built please consider we're citizens and we pay taxes in that area too we really do and i'm sure my time is up but i want to emphasize it because i live over there i love my part of town like everybody else does thank you sally thank you for the public comment if you've spoken one time you're not allowed to come back up okay so but i think there's still more people in the audience and if you will please come forward excuse me good morning my name is lucretia williams and i live at 1201 east 22nd street i'm coming to i guess the main comment that was made by the gentleman mr daniel venezuela um you know 20 years ago i this is my community san angelo i love san angelo i love the martin luther king park we hadn't had a bathroom there in 20 years i'm 50 years old so it's been gone for quite some time my grandchildren go to that park a lot of neighborhood children go to that park guess what i don't let my children go to the bathrooms because guess what there's no bathroom so they're not using no outhouse like miss sally said uh i have to take them to the store

[0:36:51] or something like that for them to use the restrooms and you may mention of it being a neighborhood park well um it's a neighborhood park but a lot of people from different neighborhoods um come to that park a lot of people feel like they are are welcome at that park um the vandalism and stuff that's being done at the park it's not by the so-called neighborhood that's doing it is different people coming into our neighborhoods uh the ones that burnt down the the port-a-potty um they went from the neighborhood we respect the people in that neighborhood we respect that park we love that park that park is a great historical value to san angelo texas and so my whole thing is the city there was a there was a bathroom there some years ago the city removed it so um miss shirley naacp everybody then rallied to get this money raised to get a bathroom uh back in the park but um you're saying it's a neighborhood park but the city should be responsible for it um should vandalism occur i haven't been to and i've been to a few parks in this city um and i i just see that we're the only park that doesn't have facilities and now since y'all are not putting it in but you're going to tell us how you're going to you know the rules on it and the vandalism and different things like that that doesn't sound like like a little oxymoron to me um y'all didn't raise the money to get the park in but y'all are not gonna help if something y'all gonna close it down or whatever that's what happened before 20 years ago um when they closed it you know it shouldn't it shouldn't be this long that we should not have a a bathroom facility or none of that

[0:38:55] and i heard you state that we only wrap up your comments okay okay thank you now you can finish your last sentence please yes it wasn't that um long ago um we have the juneteenth every year in that part and it was a nice gentleman that donated us um some decent porta-potties last year you know but i need to really understand that's a historical park it means a lot to the city of san angelo thank you very much thank you good morning council my name is sean wilson i'm out of district four i'm not gonna talk about this raise the microphone up just a bit because you're tall and we need to hear what you're saying i'm not going to talk about the venomotism so much because it's been talked about i think that's sunk into you i should say good to you what a gets to me i'm born and raised right here in tom green county and for an organization to raise their own money for a park that's in the city and the city did not want to help i'm with the organization i say that because i'm with an organization and y'all are putting stipulations on the organization that you had to raise their own money in a black community [Music] and you're going to sit up there and make them organizations here if they are following y'all's guidelines well the organization i'm a part of we bring money to san angelo [Music]

[0:40:57] the gentleman over here can tell you and it pauses me that the organization i'm a part of we did not set stipulations on our money that we sit here further public comment [Music] this is your last chance the mic is open harry actually i've been part of this project for a long time it's been on the cip city plan capital improvement plan since i've been on council shirley and i am talking about this two or three years ago and we finally got to the spot where we felt like it was time to do this back in september october this last year i would not like to see that particular clause in mou or operating instructions or however you want to put it the possibility of having additional restrooms in additional parks in this city is out there but we've got to make sure that how we approach this particular mou and lord i know i don't want to spend any more taxpayer money on anything but in the same token i want to make sure that this public private partnership is cemented well enough that we could step off and use this as a mirror to do other ones within the city i do not want to have a clause in there that says that a specific entity is going to have to pay for any vandalism knowing that this is the first time that we've taken private money to help

[0:43:02] put restrooms in parks at least since i've been on council and so i would like to say that we really and someone made a comment out there earlier that once the money is presented and the restrooms are built basically that becomes part of the city so i'd like to see a way that we can make this happen where we don't saddle a specific entity with additional uh dollars to do what we need to do so there's got to be some middle ground here somewhere all right so teresa just to be clear on what we're doing today today we are approving only the mou with area foundation to build the facilities that's correct the attachment as you said is not really part of the mou to build these facilities that's a separate issue it's background on the item to explain how it's going to be maintained and managed especially when it comes to vandalism because i do from what i understand that was a problem at this particular park before and in all of our parks but it is not part of the mou with the area foundation so what we can do today is number one we can approve the mou with the area foundation to start the work on building this facility we can continue to work on the attachment or the impart of this that allows for conversation and input as we've heard today for the maintenance and the operation of the facility is that correct so what we're doing today can do today is simply approve to get started the building and the construction the design construction build with the area foundation to get this part this restroom built we will separately continue to have a conversation about the vandalism operation who pays what

[0:45:06] for further comment and in and approval later is that correct yes that's how you want to manage it we can certainly do that i think we need to sit back down with with the organizations people community whatever and talk through the mou to better understand and make sure it's written in a manner that that people can join and approve and and support but what i also know is we need to get this area foundation up and running put the people's money to work and get the restroom built and as we're over the next month or so if we could just work on the balance of the language and the comments addressed today yes larry if i understand you correct you're suggesting that we strike that paragraph yes sir for today work on the language yes please i'd like to make a motion that we strike it okay we're going to strike it today that means we're going to have further conversation down the road on it it's just not part of the approval today but it will come back for approval thank you man okay second and by karen for the public comment so i'll just bring it up tom yeah i want everybody to know we've heard you that these bathrooms are gonna start i mean you're not gonna have a problem getting five people to roll to start these bathrooms i mean we've wanted them we've seen them but i want to give a little bit different perspective on when we establish these and put in this building we want to make sure they're lasting and they're in good shape and they last on continually you know for as long as we can basically take care of them i used to work for the stock show and rodeo in san angelo and on those grounds we have multiple bathrooms and i just think in the policy aspect of this conversation there are times we need to lock the doors i mean we had people moving in we had homeless you know you go in to use a restroom and there may be somebody moved in there for two days i mean i think all the city is asking here is a little flexibility and how they handle the

[0:47:08] policy for this and that may be at midnight what teresa talked about being able to lock the doors up we get that we don't want to be scrimped give me just a sec shirley but i think we need some flexibility in how we look at how we maintain these and i don't want anybody to get lost in the fact that they think we don't want these bathrooms there okay the foundations come through they put the money up we're going to roll with this part but that's what we're voting on today the policy is totally different but i think we all need some flexibility and input on when policy applies for the update for the upkeep and safety of these items there are many bathrooms that are locked at various times for all the the right reasons you don't want to be taking your child in to the restrooms and find something there that you don't want there so it's not all about again what we are voting on today is the mou to get the building started and we are going to continue to work on the mou in terms of operation maintenance etc we're not approving any piece of that today surely thank you madam mayor you just mentioned for public comments again and i just had something else to say but i want to speak to what tom is saying is that the design that we presented to the council last fall it does say that the bathrooms are monitored and they open at a certain time and they close at a certain time i want to make sure that we're not mixing apples and oranges here the motion that's pending right now mr miller thank you miss hessie smith thank you that we remove that attachment that speaks to vandalism and that is what our whole point was today while i hear that the mou is what we're here for when um you have those documents included it's all a part of it and so we want to make sure that that is clear so we do want to make sure that everybody understands we're not talking about with the city has said back in october that if we raise the money we could get it

[0:49:11] built and you all would maintain it we're asking you to honor that and as far as policy and direction that's being uh a part of that attachment uh madam attorney if that is recommendation to council that is what the pending motion is we don't want those those uh criterion as part of that the design of the restrooms will open and close at a certain time so there's not anybody tom that's going to be able to go in there and sleep all night long unless they're sleeping all night long after we close the park so i want to make sure and then something else was misstated and i wanted carl to speak to it but there's no other park in the city that has this type of criterion i know this is the first time that we've had such a partnership i keep getting uh told what a difference between a community and a neighborhood park is you know i'm a degree professional i know the difference the point is we have raised this money from the community the point is that whether it is neighborhood or community because as miss lucretia said back in the day there were restrooms there so the point is why are we having to go through so much we did what we said we would do we're asking the city to support the work that the citizens have done to help you because you didn't have 250 000 to spend on this we get that we raise the money now we're wanting you all to listen and hear us and see us about what the rules are about that restroom thank you thank you shirley okay there's a motion and a second any further comment on the motion and the second on the item harry larry would you repeat your motion please the motion is to strike that paragraph that we've been talking about all this morning in total

[0:51:13] paragraph four that is the motion on the floor i just want to say mayor that this is the model for all future restrooms so whatever the city council approves today will be the model moving forward for future restrooms we take direction from council we move forward with whatever your will is but again my part of my major responsibility is fiscal responsibility in looking at the future we know we have so many competing interests as far as road repairs infrastructure issues so on my part i'm just trying to make sure we're doing everything we possibly can to address the needs of the whole community but again whatever is passed today will be the model moving forward all right just to repeat what we're doing we are approving the mou that allows for the construction and the build of the part of the restrooms in mlk we have ex we are taking out the paragraph four for further discussion down the road that just that part is not a part of the approval but we have decided that we will further discuss that and decide the action that would be taken on that as a future policy for all restrooms in the parks so it's not specific to this park it will be specific to all parks in terms of the maintenance and upkeep of the facilities yes julia wait a minute now i mean i uh just just make sure that we're correct on something it won't be all parks it's all future parks that are there are uh neighborhood parks where monies are raised to put restrooms in those areas that the city did not have plans to install a restroom so on our end of course we have the maintenance associated yes we did say that back in october that we would provide maintenance and that's the twelve thousand dollars per year uh that is in this mou but now above that when you start talking about destructive elements you know that's part that i want to make sure that we're very clear on is that something that we are responsible for or the entity that's raising the funds it's not just the naacp it could be some of the group that is raising funds for another project in the future again it just goes back to fiscal responsibility

[0:53:16] and making sure that everybody's aware that yes if you raise money for 17 restrooms wonderful but again i understand that the city would be responsible for a lot of maintenance over 200 000 in regard to that one of those similar situations would be glenn moore park glenmore parks heavily utilized it's a neighborhood park it has porta potties similar situation so that would be an example of what you're talking about we have porta potties in many parks correct i just want to clarify the for the minutes we are not removing paragraph four from the mou we're discussing paragraph four in the attachment that was regarding the vandalism which is not being approved today so just correct just so the minutes reflect that appropriately i just want to ensure that that's clear to everyone okay larry's got a frown on his face so explain that further so perhaps it would be easier to take the two things separately so take a motion on the mou itself with the area foundation and then take a motion on the actual background information regarding the vandalism and what you might want to do with that going forward so larry let me get this straight the original motion is now going to be we accept the mou as it stands right now without the paragraph removed there is no paragraph in the mou that deals with vandalism so what everybody's referring to as an attachment i i mean if it's in here somebody show me where it is in the mou itself that's that's a document that was in the background information but in the mou document that's the contract that's going to be signed that is not referenced anywhere what we're trying to approve simply today is the document that approves the mou to build the restroom with the area foundation correct the background documents that are attached to that that deal with vandalism etc is not what we're looking to approve right now i mean we can you can take action on that today and but

[0:55:20] that should that's not part of the mou today that is an operating policy related to these kinds of bathrooms that should be in some bathrooms yes yeah we want to build the bathrooms today that the we want to approve the mou with the area foundation to build the bathrooms the separate item inclusive in the packet that deals with vandalism etc is not what we're going to approve today is that correct council so let's go back and re-look at just a minute harry what we're going to do is ask that a we have a motion on the floor which was a motion to approve the mou and remove paragraph four of the supporting documents so we've got to take a vote yay or nay on that then we can take another motion to totally eliminate any conversation on the additional documents that deal with vandalism etc so they're really you're looking at two things one mou with the area foundation to build construct second of all approval of the documents that guide us on how we manage and oversee and look at vandalism and pain for vandalism burning down you know restroom parks after they're built etc is that correct yes that's correct the area foundation has no role in that and the mou is with is with the stereo foundation yes and i think what we want to do today is get the restrooms up and running and the construction built and with that we will then have some meetings to further discuss the documents that would be our guiding documents for all future restrooms that will be built in any park with community fund raise fund raising is that clear or just muddy as

[0:57:22] a dry creek okay i just i just wanted to say that we would like the whole background document removed and i think that's what you just told me that we're not going to discuss that we're not going to discuss not just before but the whole document we're removing it today for further discussion so we're not voting on that today what we're voting on is let's get the restroom built okay that's the mou with the area foundation we don't want this paragraph for the whole document all right thank you for further review and consideration down the road okay with that do i need to take a vote on the existing motion that's out there okay so if you don't support just removing uh paragraph four we would vote no on that right now and then we would have a new motion to prove simply the mou with the area foundation and not with the documents none of the backup background documents that describe the maintenance oversight and funding of future problems would would council million would recommend remember miller uh be willing to just remove his motion remove my motion that motion is removed now may i have a new motion ocean should approve item b from the regular agenda item b which is simply the mou with the area foundation second and by harry every one seconds we've got three seconds one motion i think we've had public comment on this so but i certainly will offer an opportunity for further comment on it okay we will take a vote all in favor of approving the mou with the area foundation to create documents and build the restrooms at mlk may i have a vote i i i

[0:59:24] five to zero we will move forward teresa and work on documents on how we would manage all future restroom facilities where the public has raised the funds and how we deal with the payment of vandalism fire destruction etc is that clear okay that means that we will move on to item c and it is the first reading and public hearing of an ordinance annexing into the city of san angelo by petition of the property owner an unaddressed 37.98 acre tract beginning being 36.60 acres and a 1.38 acre access easement and the m meyer survey number 169 abstract number 1647 and part of block 9 upton and collins subdivision tom greene county texas located southeast of country club road and south ratliff road john euron thank you john james director of planning and development services you described in your opening the the area so i won't describe it again but it is this area here in uh in the hatched area it is currently outside the city limits the property owner has requested that it be incorporated into the city limits through annexation so this is a voluntary annexation request at the request of the property owner there was a final plat approved on this area creating 52 single-family lots and then one commercial lot up in the corner and we'll talk about that more on the zoning case that's that's coming after this but that plat was approved at the april planning commission meeting i can get more into that if there are questions because i know at the planning commission meeting there were questions about the timing of of the plat versus the annexation and zoning but this is uh part of our annexation plan the city has adopted an annexation plan

[1:01:25] that defines certain areas some as immediate annexation others as longer term annexation areas for the future we use that in kind of long-range planning for the future this isn't an area that's designated as immediate so in other words we have the ability to serve it and it can come into the city with no problems on an immediate basis the state law does require a service plan and you'll see in your packet there is a service plan as part of this annexation approval that defines how we will serve that area and in general the service plan basically says once this is annexed we will serve it like we do all the other parts of the city this one does have a little bit of a wrinkle that's different from many annexations in that a portion of this area is within the water service area of the millersview dual service water supply corporation and so you can see here in this particular map that area and the crosshatch is in their service area so all of the rest of this can be served by city water once it's annexed into the city but these lots over here would be served by miller's view duel as included in your packet there is a process in the works where millersview is agreeing to give up their service area and give that over to the city i believe there's agreement by both the city and miller's view duel to do that but it does have to go to the state public utility commission and be approved so that has not been done yet so you'll notice in the service plan as it's proposed right now it basically says the city will serve it if we get permission from the state to serve it otherwise those areas will continue to be served by the private water supply corporation this area in red you see is the entirety of the proposed area they have proposed phasing the development of this entire subdivision

[1:03:29] so the first phase as you saw on the previous slide would be up here and then working their way south as as they continue to develop and we may come back to this slide i know there are some questions here on the plat for example this road that comes in the location of that road in relationship to the property across the street i know was an issue that came up at the planning commission meeting staff does recommend approval of this annexation as did the planning commission although technically the planning commission is not responsible for annexations we take that to them just for their information so they did actually not take a vote on that but they did discuss it and were aware of it at that meeting but again this does come with a recommendation for approval by staff i'd be happy to answer any questions if you go back to the map for what i um go back one more and yeah that'll work all right so what i understand um there are citizens that are very concerned about that middle um what would be into the cul-de-sac and wondered if that road that's at the bottom of this flat could be put there and that cul-de-sac area be brought down to where that road is so that the road would not so that the citizens who already lived there that is that what you're suggesting yes and then that that road because you have to have the second exit ride out yeah and that's that's really part of the concern here is um this area is too large under our ordinance requirements not to have an exit out to ratliff road here and so i think in fact one of their original designs of this subdivision did not have any exit out onto ratliff road but that creates an issue

[1:05:32] in terms of block length and maximum lengths of roads without a secondary access and all of that and so they did in fact have to add a connection out this way and out this way in order to comply with those ordnance standards and of course there there's another one here and then finally uh up here is is the other connection and so there's four exits yeah and our ordinances require well and there's actually a road a future road that will continue down here now they don't actually connect to that road but yeah our ordinances require interconnectivity basically what what you don't want is a bunch of subdivisions to develop with limited entrances and exits you want to give people the opportunity as a whole area develops you want to give them multiple opportunities a good example would be foster road and butler farms where that was approved and built with one exit only yeah now ultimately there may be more uh connectivity as areas around that develop but yeah that's a good example but it was approved as a plot with one exit correct to the frontage road right and as we've seen with that that can create problems if that one entrance and exit has flooding for example uh you've trapped a whole neighborhood um with no other way in and out or you know police and fire response times are affected by not having multiple ins and outs but you've just showed us four exits which would seem to go and is that what you just showed us yeah that's correct and that's based on on uh length so this distance is such that uh multiple entrances and exits would have to be uh out you know to rattle off road based on that length it comes down to their their basically standards that

[1:07:34] block link standards and connectivity standards that our ordinance is based on that require every so every so much distance you have to have another exit out from a subdivision so co so go back one more slide again too this one yes sir and then show the exits on this one so there's one exit there and the other exit there so there's just two on this first phase yeah there would only be two and of course this would this would continue in the future but at the initially it would be a dead end until that next phase started to develop okay so the big question as i understood it is if you look at i have to get up here so i can read it that little row that middle cul-de-sac area this one i understand that the biggest issue are the homeowners who've lived there for a long time let me let the homeowner speak to it i don't want to say what i don't know and say it wrong so let me be quiet and allow public comment if you're here to speak about this issue please come forward state your name your district if you are in the city or in the county and make your comments please thank you mayor my name is robert wicks we live at 6925 south ratliff road you point that out on this map um i'm at the end of bunker drive the headlights will be right in my living room window and i have also comments about the rezoning so i'll try to make this part specific to to item c here and i really appreciate the chaplain's prayer right about this point because

[1:09:37] [Music] this this area of concern comes to us because we had no knowledge of this happening until it was already approved until this design was already approved um we knew that there were some things going on we knew that there was some surveying but there's been surveying going on for 15 years and when it came down ultimately to this design and there's other pictures that show how narrow ratliff road is and how tight the area of country club road is these access points the way they were designed impact those of us that have lived there for for a long period of time i'll save the the parts that i have potentially for for the safety part on the other one but it just simply caught us totally off guard to only be told that they were trying to maximize their profits is why it has to be built that way we were told that the city told them told the developer that it because of the way the water lines would run it had to be built that way that the outlet point had to be at that point and um i think that simply from that design aspect um [Music] we were and i can't i guess i could say that just the disappointment put yourself in my shoes my wife's shoes my mother-in-law's shoes where it's one thing to have 52 homes put in that first area but it's another where what we see from knowing and living there people coming to ratliff road to exit that live on that side of it the increase of traffic and safety that will impact that area i don't i don't know how else to put it on that part of it thank you

[1:11:39] further public comment i'm sure oh it didn't that was good there you go okay uh thank you council members thank you mirror we appreciate this uh like bob mentioned the thing that we were concerned about and i'm going to use another word and i don't know about the other names but i am very offended about this whole thing we were not told at all about any of this and the two that voted with us said they've wondered why none of us came to object we didn't know it was very hush hush i will say this and a lot of you know me i sell real estate i could not find out who bought it and what was going on until it was done so um the thing about it is we bought there to be in the country you know it's quiet it's close to town it's in wall schools and so it was peaceful and i know that we didn't buy the property the property was up for sale and someone else did but to annex that into the city takes all that away our road is very very narrow where he lived it's not like a street wide like a street it's much narrower so when you stop there at that stop sign to exit you're almost in his front yard that's how close it is the road right now we're having trouble with the solar panels coming around the trucks they're driving entirely too fast we have children out there that play the road is not wide enough you can pass on it and the curve that comes into the second plaid of the house is being built they cannot turn there with their huge tractor trailer rigs it is too narrow and and too sharp to

[1:13:42] turn because i have been there and watched them because my road comes off of the circle and so i have to stop there and they come down the road and i have waited till they got there to see what happens at the curve and that curve is going to come right into the second layer of this so you know we're concerned that our uh they're tearing all the trees down and of course that's their right to do that they own the land but what if this project doesn't get off the ground who's gonna fix the mess i'm not saying it will or it won't but you know in in life we know things come up and things happen you know our market's going crazy uh we don't know what's going to happen with real estate so there's just a lot of concerns and we were just not pleased at the way it was handled that we had no say to object before it was done thank you very much ma'am could i get you to say your name into the microphone for the record and your address i didn't tell who i was no ma'am oh i'm so sorry well i guess i'll tell you both hi my name is glenda martindale i live at 7351 south rattle road john you want to speak to the annexation rules who has to be notified or not notified or what happens when an area is being asked to be annexed yeah and i'll speak briefly to the planning process as well but there are no notification requirements we don't send out notices for an annexation um and that's that's pretty typical i mean that that's not something that uh we've ever sent notices on it's not required in state law it's not required by our ordinance um for the planning process is similar the planning process for subdivisions creating lots uh is a ministerial process so basically if they so if a property owner submits a plat to subdivide their property as long as it meets state law and our ordinance we have to approve it by state law

[1:15:46] most plats with very few exceptions very unique exceptions almost every plat does not require any notice so had this already been in the city limits had it already been zoned for single family homes there would have been no notice again partly because if they meet the standards of our subdivision ordinance we are required to approve it and that's partly for transparency for the development community we have rules they know if they meet those rules they will be approved and so i'm aware of the concerns of the neighbors that they weren't aware of this but i want to caution you that even had this been done in a different order um they there would not have been notice to those property owners because uh again basically if they meet our subdivision rules these must be approved and there's there's really no discretion on the part of the planning commission uh who approves platts or on the council except for the fact when you're making the rules uh and in this particular case i think staff is sympathetic to you know someone having a road that directly faces into their home but unfortunately our ordinances don't have any provisions that would allow us to prevent that it's possible we could amend our ordinances to say you know we don't want that to happen or we discourage it but there's really nothing the planning commission can do to force them to move that road to a different location does our planning process include making sure that the roads that support this development are safe as was brought out before that these big trucks and trailers building the solar farms are not safe for the residents and can't even turn on these roads so what is their requirement and it obviously the county is in the county the county would have had the ability i'm assuming with the solar plant to have addressed

[1:17:49] the issue of these roads don't support what's going to happen here and i know you're not county so sure the county i assume could have rules you know limiting you know weight of trucks and not allowing truck traffic on that that road i'm not um for sure about that but what i will say is that our process does as as part of developing uh you have to and you the developer has to ensure uh adequate facilities not only water and sewer but roads and so as part of this development they will be required to improve ratliff road to widen it as and that's how development typically occurs oftentimes old county roads are narrow but as development occurs along them the developers widen it in this case you know on their side of the road if future development happens on the other side of the road it would be widened on that side but that's that's basically the way the process works so it will be wide and i know in the planning commission there was a concern that they'll widen it here and here but it'll still be narrow there in the middle but again that's that's kind of the way the process works and the city staff public works and engineering will work with them to ensure that you know where it narrows down it will taper and be as safe as possible but then if if and when this property develops they would be responsible for widening that piece um but that is addressed in our process in in terms of how those roads get widened as development occurs all right so i think the big question then is i think that are the developers here today would you come forward and just talk about the one big issue and that is if there's flexibility and potential for um not having that road come and all the traffic face directly into this one person's front yard and and front window is there flexibility can there be can you show us the flexibility you could

[1:19:53] give us on this issue good morning council casey poynter uh developer 705 west ratliff road i actually live very well pretty close to here at least uh concerning flexibility on bunker drive no not really it doesn't flow well it doesn't work we we went down multiple routes we actually originally had a cul-de-sac right there and we had to pull that out so that we could have another exit uh primarily there's a block length requirement that we have to meet on the south half here so we needed to be as far south as we could so that we can meet the south half blocklings just the distance between the exits of the subdivision if you'll notice the one out to the east there is a future it will be built into the property line but there will not actually be an exit there until further development takes place point that out on that map if you would oh boy just hold your finger yeah use my finger right there so that that's a future road leading to further development if it happens in the future but we will build that out but it won't go anywhere right now uh i would like to uh state that you know there's a lot about we were very hush-hush or we didn't want to have people know about this that's that's absolutely not true we we did not keep it quiet uh mr j dykes and his son colby live right in the middle which we are completely surrounding uh i've definitely talked to him multiple times because of the fact that we were going to surround him he's not here today because he understands that it's going to develop and it has to for our city's growth and our needs and our wants

[1:21:59] we understand the need for housing so as a council that's not really the issue here i just trying to when you do development what you hope to do is to make as many people happy as you possibly can although we understand that you're not going to make everybody happy and that happens with almost every big development like this that occurs there's someone or some persons who are not happy with it but i know that i if i had a new road that was going to be built and all that traffic and those lights would be coming directly into my front window i would certainly not be happy so we understand response to that my my question of course was what alternatives exist and can there be some alternative that we could work through to try to better solve that issue i do not believe so yes mom show me the exact road that we're talking about just draw an arrow on it and that feeds all the way through the ratliff yes sir go back to that john would you come up a minute and help with this map go back to that one you know that i keep referring to that has the two cul-de-sacs and then the road you know that one so show us on that map because the issue is i believe that center cul-de-sac looking thing there and coming out to the street the road where mr wick's house is can you point where mr wick's house is on that map please right there yes and so you can't move that cul-de-sac property down there and the road up there which would be more in the center of the development anyway we won't meet that block length going south

[1:24:01] that's the distance between the exits yes ma'am and john that's can you speak to that yeah so if i understand what what you're suggesting is perhaps this road could be the one that comes out and then this one gets cul-de-sac yes sir um you know i have to do the measurements i'm if casey says that's that doesn't meet then uh i'm sure that's that's the case wasn't ever discussed is the distance from there to the next street is a maximum of i think 2200 feet so if if we moved it up there um if that exceeds 2200 feet then it doesn't meet our ordnance standards that's the issue yes ma'am council do you have questions comments tom you look like you have something on your mind so i mean it's we've looked at that we're developing we're in need of housing we go through there and i have friends that live on country club like a state circle and the rope around i mean spend tons of time there i want to say in time this would not be as big as a problem as it is today and see that but as you know you're not going to see your traffic into that for probably a year or two i mean has this developed how long does it take you to get to that street we will build the street out so all these streets and that section one that you're seeing which is phase one of construction uh will be built out so there there could be lots being built on down here currently we do not have any contracts on those lots they're all in the cul-de-sacs because those are the most valuable obviously but it will be built out we have to build it out we have to provide that second exit well i mean it's at this point it's a safety issue and it's ordinance and it's coming in and i mean the the bad thing about development is um none of us we all wish we had tons of insulation beside us but even on the

[1:26:04] north side of town development has far by far exceeded where we were and his miles passes and continues to and this part with what we've got going on at the airport in the lake is is gonna expand and this is just a part of it and i wish there was a better way to keep everybody comfortable on this but i just don't see it karen yes ma'am it's a good moment based on tom's comment to note that it's my understanding that part of the frustration of the citizens is related to the lack of notice the lack of notification and that also that also again points to the fact that that we have concerns about how notification is handled for the city and it's complicated further in this case because some of the some of the people affected by this proposal are residents of the county and so according to john there's no requirement for the city to notify those people of what may be heading their way so i don't want to get too far into the weeds but i want to remind council and the mayor and the city manager and john that we have a problem with this we don't want an angry mob we don't want people unhappy about what you're doing if there is a way that that the citizens could have their say i don't even know what that would look like but of the people that spoke this morning from the neighborhood i would be curious what they think about that and something that all of you in this room cannot see is what i saw and i think harry saw when this was heard by the planning commission dozens of chairs had to be added to the room because there were so many people from that area that were unhappy about was what was happening to them so there are flaws and problems and shortfalls that that will continue probably to

[1:28:08] contribute as we move into these areas where we want to annex thank you karen harry so to karen's point this could be a lesson learned for funeral future annexations and just because we're not required to notify the citizens maybe it's a good idea that we think about how we can we can get them involved in the process that way maybe we we can have some of these questions answered ahead of time instead of doing it later we all know that when people find out something there are always items that are added to from one person to a next in communications and so if there had been an opportunity for casey to present us to the citizens early on they may not have been as many questions so i i don't know how we do that but it certainly is a is an opportunity for us to learn from this particular lesson john is that a city ordinance of course it was county so the issue is county versus city but big issue state so what does the state say well the state the state does not require any notices uh for annexations we could do that it's it's not something i've ever seen in another city do and oftentimes annexations are fairly large so if we if we look at the area we would have to notify assuming we used the normal 200 foot notification like we used for zoning it would be a well we don't do that many annexations but it would be an increase in the amount of work done for an annexation process but it definitely could be done again i would caution for something like this we have to be careful though to avoid giving citizens the impression that they have an impact when they don't necessarily so

[1:30:10] the subdivision process again as an example is state law says if it meets our rules we must approve it and so if we start to send out notices for platts for example you might be giving the citizens the impression that they can come and speak and i mentioned earlier there's a very limited uh set of plats where we do are required to give notices and we have that problem with those citizens come and speak and say i don't want this and then we say well but it meets our ordinance so planning commission you have to approve and so that frustrates those citizens who got a notice came out and spoke only to learn that they really didn't have a voice because it's not a discretionary decision when it comes to a plat and so that's that's something that we should be mindful of john in this case you're stating that because this property the plat meets all of our requirements just because it shines lights somewhere another is not a part of our ordinance that the planning commission could have done anything about that's right and i let me check real quick we no i thought we might have included a picture but there's um as i understand it and the property owner can correct me if i'm wrong but you can see here there are some trees and i believe there's also a fence along that property line so i know headlights have been mentioned a couple of times i don't believe headlights would shine into this this home because of those trees and the fence there may be other concerns but there is some buffering between those those two things they could request to the developer that they take that into consideration and try to accommodate but as far as enforcement they couldn't have anything further questions from counsel no okay thank you i see someone coming forward to speak good morning good morning your name and

[1:32:18] my name is please carmen lira and i live in 1935 and y'all say or he corey said there are they're going to expand ratliff road if you've been out there red live road today is very small and i mean and there's a lot of electrical poles where the mailboxes are to the resident they live on ratliff road so how are they going to expand the road they're going to have to move all those mailboxes and i don't know what they're going to do with all those electrical balls it's all along radley road where he's going to build and that is going to be a very dangerous road because right now there's young kids that drive there and when you're coming in from grand canal road if you don't make the turn almost to the fins of the first owner of the the empty lot that he has his house for her back and another car is coming out you will have an accident there it's a very little road and yes all those trucks that are passing those large trucks the big trucks for the panels i've been thinking that road is not strong enough for all those heavy trucks we're going to have problems and then the county takes forever to fix a hole when it gets over there now they'll do country club uh road and grand canal road but not us but that is something that if you want to go look at the little grand canal road i mean at grand canal red live road you may because they need to expand it bigger and it's going to take him to his houses and another thing the addition before that all the exits from that area go out to grand canal road where he's going to use a lot of red live road for the people to exit out you're talking of a lot of cars and a lot of young kids

[1:34:21] and when somebody gets killed there a bad accident i promise you it's gonna happen you have to go out there and look at that area that's all that and and and now they're going to be in x to san angelo and also they say miller's view water well if you live out there at least once a month you don't have water from miller's view and the water is brown it's yellow if you wash any white things your things are going to be yellow and ruined water is a problem over there he said he's going to get some from y'all and miller's view but miller's view has its problems we have our problems with miller's view that's all i have to say thank you carmen tom no i was just saying in the background all this the miller fee water leaves the documentation and it all comes to city provided right i don't know if that's any wider but we're good all right if you've spoken one time i can't you won't allow you to come back again okay please come forward touch the screen okay so this is ratliff road this is ratliff road here okay this here how do i take that out okay this he's gonna have to give the builder from what i understand they have to give is it eight foot eight foot or ten foot eight foot or ten foot ten foot he said ten foot okay okay so we say we come right in here okay all these trees are being gone they're pushing all these trees down all these trees are not here anymore and it's a mess so all of this green is going so he's going to have to come in 10 15 or i can't draw then we come back out here here

[1:36:25] and then we come in ten foot here okay right here that's that corner i'm talking about a truck cannot on that road go here one of those huge trucks go here two cars barely you have to watch or you'll hit head on they cannot make this turn it's too sharp so you have this road right here that's going to stop here at this dangerous curve there's nothing you can do because in the platte records there is nothing by the county that was given when the surveys were done on this side of the road there is no easements that the cap that the city can get because it's the people's property i checked into all that so it has to come from this side but right there right there is that i'm talking about the curve that the trucks cannot make the curve they have to almost stop i live right here and i come out here and i watch them and they can't make that curve because they're too long and they drive so fast coming down that road like she said they don't need to be on the road but when he threw the map up it just dawned on me this is where you're coming out here right in the dangerous curve this stays here then you come back out here and i assume that platt um if you got you know really involved in that plaid and saw the actual work you would see that the 10 foot is incorporated into that already you're not taking 10 foot more is that correct i don't know okay excuse me as part of the plat they they would dedicate the additional right-of-way on the developer's side and then the extra width to the street would be added to that side so none of it would come from the other side it will all come into this property but it would only be

[1:38:28] added from this development side because the other side is based off of the people who own the property on the other side who would have to improve that half of the road how's that working yeah if i understand that that's correct now so this area for example that's undeveloped if they were to come in to plat those out they would also have to widen their side of the street but in these areas that are already developed that likely would never happen my assumption is that in laying out this plot there's an understanding that they know about the electrical lines that are there i mean that had all been taken into consideration when this plaque was laid out that that's incorporated into this plan as drawn yes they would be responsible for moving over any electric lines i mean mailboxes of course it wouldn't be on again where none of the widening happens on on this side of the street it would all be on the developers side but yeah they would have to accommodate that in their construction plans we would have a half undeveloped road well there's a road there already they would just be widening it but in the direction of their development which is how all of these developments occur we often have you know partial widening on one side and then when the other side of the road develops there would be widening i haven't seen one of those but i'm assuming that you know yeah but it's it's not uncommon for that other side since that's mostly developed not to ever get widened um but at least the road instead of 24 feet wide will be 34 feet wide which is you know close to our standard anyway and there was no consideration and thought process relative to that corner down there where it's considered quite dangerous right now first of all the solar farm i'm not sure what their time frame in completing that project is but sooner or later those trucks will stop well they'll still be maintaining and bringing things in i'm the same they're

[1:40:30] using our road anyway yeah they should be going 277 you know they're closer to 277 but they're coming our road because they can drive fast my other thing is he mentions we have roads like this i've never you just mentioned i've never seen a road i'm driving down and i'm here and all of a sudden i'm here and then i'm here again it's like a checkerboard i mean kids driving and people driving they're here wide well then when they have to come back in because the road's gone i don't care how much tapering you do it's not that wide to get tapered back in if they're not paying attention they're going to hit somebody head on thank you when i saw the map i wanted to show you where the circle was appreciate that thank you further public comment i'm sherry wicks i also live on 6925 south ratliff road and my concern is for country club road we've all been talking about ratliff road but the country club road which is up here is going to get all this traffic and then the convenience store i think it's going to be right there is that correct and this road is just a you know two-lane highway and they have variances granted variances and i'm kind of confused at why that was granted and there i guess was a study i'm sure a highway study or something that granted the variances for not widening the road on country club road john would have to answer that i can't okay i'm just reading out of your planning board minutes or it says that the granting of the

[1:42:32] variants to not widen country club road is not detrimental to public safety health or welfare and i was wondering how that got determined and who determined that that would not be detrimental to public safety because that road is already very congested as it is and if you know there's going to be 52 houses two cars per house another 100 cars and then a convenience store and all the traffic coming in and out of there seems like it's going to be kind of detrimental to our public safety but that's kind of what my question was as far as the variances and while i'm here because i can't come back up the rat lift road they get granted a variance that they would only have to do an additional eight feet instead of the ten is that correct y'all are saying the ten feet okay well i'm reading the final plot um okay total of 18. so i'm just curious my one question was who determined and how the variances were determined and what kind of public safety study that they did if or they just sat there and said okay well no we don't need to widen the road because to me i would think that they would need a you know highway safety study or something to determine that that road didn't need to be widened and and again as far as ratliff road is concerned if they're going to do the 8 feet or the 10 feet so i can address that last one first it's 10 feet of additional right of way so they're giving the property uh for 10 feet of of land but then they're actually widening the road eight feet so the pavement increase would be an additional eight feet but

[1:44:35] that eight feet is within the ten so it's not eighteen but it's the eight is within that ten um i drew a blank on the other question well the variance the country club yes um just a few years ago in the last 10 years country club was completely redone reconstructed by the city and so at that time they reconstructed the road designed it as certain width built curbs along the side and so in cases like that where the city has gone in and and completed a road to a specific standard that was planned for at that time we don't typically then make a developer widen it beyond that um and so uh multiple developments along country club road have come in and that's been the same answer is uh not to require them to widen it because uh the city put in that investment to make it a certain width you know perhaps at some point in the future we'll determine as development happens in this area that now it's not wide enough and it needs to be widened but the decision was made at the time that's the width and so each incremental development won't have to add to that width okay other questions and or comments [Music] all right so at this point then what i need i'm asking for is a motion for approval as written on item c so moved by tom second and by harry it is open for more further public comment at this point all right seeing none we'll take a vote all in favor of approving item c say i i i so the motion passes three two i'd like to register in a vote just to emphasize my points earlier and larry you're a naval

[1:46:37] a nice so that moves and approved four to one all right item d first reading and public hearing of ordinances for the fine cases for property being 37.98 acres located at the southeast corner of country club road and south ratliff road one cp 22-04 a request for approval of an amendment to the comprehensive plan changing the virtual future land use from rule to neighborhood and commercial and to z22-10 a request for approval to zone property to the single-family residential and general commercial zoning districts john euron thank you this is the same property as you'll see from the map here it is just the phase one so when we looked at that larger area that includes all of this down here uh we're not considering that today just the the phase one portion of this uh this is changing the comprehensive plan as well as rezoning the properties um and so in terms of the comprehensive plan it's currently all designated as rural uh it would change this to neighborhood and then the small piece up here it would change to commercial and then in terms of the zoning request similarly it would change this part of the property to rs1 which allows for single-family homes and then that property they've requested cg and i'll note that staff recommended and the planning commission recommended a lower intensity district of neighborhood commercial neighborhood commercial versus cg would be explain what could happen basically for for some of the intensity higher intensity uses like storage warehouses for example which i think is one of the things they're considering it would require a separate conditional use approval in the future rather than just being allowed and there's some auto oriented auto sales car wash kinds of uses that would would be allowed in cg but would require a separate conditional use in the

[1:48:42] neighborhood commercial that's the primary reason staff neighborhood commercial a good example of something that would be built would be what any it could be a convenience store it could be just any small scale on a property that size it couldn't be obviously it couldn't be a walmart or anything like that because it's a small property but likely something like a small retail or convenience store something of that of that nature as i mentioned it could allow a storage mini storage warehousing but that would require a separate approval by the planning commission and they could place some conditions on it oftentimes they'll near a neighborhood they'll place some extra conditions like screening or some landscaping to make it a little bit nicer when it's set right in the middle of you know this this commercial will be completely surrounded by homes and so that's kind of the concern is what could happen that right in the middle of a neighborhood we did send out uh notices uh as as was mentioned earlier we are not required by our ordinance or state law to send notices outside the city limits but you can see we did those those folks did become aware of it even though we didn't send out notices so in that respect i think back to the issue of notice we often find that in controversial items neighbors become aware of it whether or not we send out notices anyway that's one of the reasons we put signs out on the property as well notifying through a sign that something is happening and proposed on a property just a couple of pictures you can see there is a picture of ratliff road it is very fairly narrow currently i won't read through all of this it's in your background information but it's basically a rationale for supporting the change to both the comprehensive plan and the zoning again as we mentioned earlier that we do have a need for housing

[1:50:45] we have a need for the community to grow and this is an area we've seen a desire for growth and so annexing this property and zoning it for single family homes we think is is the right thing in this area as i mentioned staff does recommend approval as did the planning commission we did recommend denial of the uh zoning as i mentioned to general commercial and instead that the plan would go to neighborhood center and the zoning would go to neighborhood commercial instead that was considered by the planning commission and they recommended approval of that staff recommendation by a 4-2 vote you're saying they recommended it going to neighborhood instead of general commercial that's correct we may have uh in case that question comes up this is uh i know it's hard to read but this is the differences between the general commercial and neighborhood commercial district and some of the uses that are and aren't allowed and so as i mentioned some of these conditional uses self-service storage short-term rental vehicle car wash waste related uses there are some of the kinds of things that would be allowed in general commercial but not in the neighborhood commercial district yes tom john did they come and say why they wanted cg and set us again i defer to they're here so i would defer to them to answer that that question can you live with it at cnn okay any questions for john then would be asking for a motion to approve item d items one and two is there a motion can we hang on for a second and the way that the agendas worded wouldn't they need to change d1 to specify

[1:52:48] neighborhood and neighborhood commercial based on they could the way we typically view it is the recommendation from the planning commission is the formal recommendation that comes to them um it's worded the way it is on the agenda because that is was the original request that councilmember thompson just asked if they could live with it if it was neighborhood commercial and they did that's in the okay said neighborhood and commercial yeah i think to be clear maybe if you restate the motion as recommending approval as recommended by the planning commission public comment i greatly appreciate this opportunity i'm robert wicks at 6925 south ratliff road i take exception to what the gentleman said it in the regard that he was able to talk with the person most closely involved and he was a part of the sale and the different items happen to allow him to procure that property but he could have walked a hundred feet might not be required by law might not be required by ordinance but it sure would be neighborly and this map doesn't show it but he is on ratliff road by ratliff road namesake only west ratliff road which is a mile away from where any of this is happening now i'll let my motions go we have expressed concern about the safety and traffic of the rezoning of this area and all the other parts were already discussed i'm not here to talk about the plat and i understand there's a need for housing but when you put 52 homes in this area and you tell me that the road was widened i was there when the construction was done and there's not a curb there was this cement put along the side and it was shortly after a citizen from country club lake estates was killed

[1:54:51] by an errant driver now we're going to be putting all these other homes there and not consider the safety i'm so grateful that this map is up because if you look at that corner and you take the bigger picture please there's 59 homes that are in the affected area that we've been talking about 59 homes doesn't seem like much but there are hundreds of homes that come from this west area towards ratliff road up country club road and that is the only way they have to get to their place of business recreation or whatever it is that they're doing hundreds of homes down that way there's another 40 homes in grand canal area and templin road there's businesses it's industrial when you look at this and you're not considering the safety by widening that road adequately it's incomprehensible to me that that and that's where that whole idea of let's break bread together and have a communication let's have a talk comes to play i i'll say that part with with a lot of passion but i'm just concerned when you add a convenience store and lord knows we don't need another convenience store in this town nor do we need another car wash what we need is diverse business but if you put that there that brings even more traffic to this area and i ask you to put yourselves in our shoes there's people that have lived in that area for over 40 years they've invested we've invested for 15 years longer than i've ever lived in my life and i simply ask that you take those kinds of things into consideration the traffic and safety that this move this rezoning creates maybe there's a need for new homes more

[1:56:54] homes absolutely but a grand total of 120 homes in a three-tenth of a mile stretch thank you further public comment casey porner again uh just here if you guys have any other questions real quick i would like we we did look at this we went down every avenue the city recommended and that's all we knew how to do to be honest i we didn't walk 100 yards i guess we should have done that but i'm not a professional developer i'm an oil field guy to be honest we you know we we have a a company here in town dorado construction group and we go out and build stuff everywhere this was a way for us to get through the pandemic and it started then and i've been working on it a year and a half so it started in the middle of that and it's been a long road aho but yes we can we can live with the the cn the commercial neighborhood we didn't really fight that we wanted commercial general general commercial just for flexibility and trying to sell the lot any questions please i'm here no questions thank you all right there has been a motion in a second to approve item d one and two we will take a vote voice vote so all in favor larry karen hey for the same reason stated before thank you harry yay tom aye and i i so motion passes four one we'll move on to item e we are going to i'm going to ask for a motion to table this to the june 21st

[1:58:57] meeting and um so may i have a motion for that some move by harry second by karen um i don't know that we have to take public comment on this i don't think anyone would be here to speak on it all right so with that we'll take a vote to approve moving this item e to the june 21st meeting i'll say aye aye motion passes four one there will be no closed session um so we will move to item a b consider approving the various board nominations fort concho museum board sarah clemens smd five to first term ending january 2024 keeps an angel beautiful board alan groth smd six to first term ending september 2023 parks and recreation advisory board d j will the smd five to first term ending december 2023 and the zoning board of adjustment lyndon roberts galindo smd 5 to a first term ending january 2024 i may have a motion for approval of all that have just been read on item a to b moved by tom second by harry public comment on any of these nominations seeing none will take a vote all in favor say aye aye motion passes four two one we will now have a net mayor i think the last two votes have been five zero i don't think anyone dissented five people yeah sorry and the same thing on item e right i said four zero correct that thank you all right may i have a motion for adjournment shall move to second second by karen all in favor say aye meeting is adjourned at 10 31 a.m you

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=aaoaaukp0x0