San Angelo City Council 5-7-19

[0:00:00] right with Tommy sat down we will go ahead and have our chaplain prayer and let's see oh yes yes come on for Gary good morning everybody good morning everybody all right now I feel better giving honor to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to our honorable mayor Brent Brenda gutter to the state members of the City Council and to all department heads and everyone that's here thank you for allowing me to be a part of this City Council meeting this morning let's pray father in heaven in the name of Jesus we bow before you the author and finisher of our faith to say thank you for another day that you have made we thank you for your grace and your mercy and all that you have done but now Lord it is time to take care of the business of the city and therefore we beseech you for wisdom and for knowledge and understanding I pray God that you bless everyone here and that God what we're about to do in this place will glorify you we pray that your will be done and we pray that you bless the city of San Angelo and that all of us coming together will handle the business of the city in a way that will honor you this we pray in Jesus's name let everybody say Amen [Applause] and yes thank you so much it's not been an honor to serve in the federal service

[0:02:02] with the Secret Service the Homeland Security and now the Air Force and now I'm here to give you more of my time as a chaplain with the city of thank you for your service thank you ma'am and now we will have our pledges I have IV deal and Willow deal coming forward to help us do the pledges this morning IV is a 6th grader and willow is a 3rd grader and look how beautiful you look this morning ok we're gonna turn we're gonna start with this one ok [Applause] today is going to be City Council meeting full of proclamations so everybody sit down relax and we're going to present seven of these today so let me also warn you all if you're nervous about me having a cold its hay fever so you're not gonna catch a cold for me so don't worry about shaking my hand I'm sanitary and we and you won't catch it we are going to start off with a proclamation as national Asian Pacific Heritage Month so with those of you coming here to receive this Proclamation

[0:04:05] please come forward we've got all ages here today that's fabulous in 1978 Congress proclaimed the first Asian Pacific American Heritage Week to take place in May of 1979 and in 1992 designated May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month this time of year recalls a dark aspect of history on May 6 1882 President authors signed the Chinese Exclusion Act preventing Chinese laborers enter entry to the United States and denying Chinese immigrants a pathway to citizenship in 1924 the Johnson Reid Act known as the Immigration Act of 1924 ended further immigration from Japan in 1988 Congress passed the Civil Liberties act providing that a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese and his ancestry by the evacuation relocation and internment of civilians during World War two the US Senate in 2011 and the US House in 2012 unanimously condemned the Chinese Exclusion laws and affirm Congress commitment to preserve the civil rights for all people Americans who trace our ancestry to Asia and the Pacific Islands have contributed much to our nation in this city with their talents hard work and diversity of cultural transitions languages and face therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo

[0:06:08] Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim May 20 19 as National Asian Pacific Heritage Month in San Angelo Texas and encourage our citizens to learn more about the history and rich contributions of Asian Pacific Americans congratulations [Applause] hi my name is Mimi and thank you for this extreme honor and I can say we're all very proud of where we've come from and how far we've gone and it shows a lot to the town of San Angelo how they honor and respect our culture and they celebrate our diversity and it just shows how much they want to grow our economy and goodness to stay here and we're very proud and thankful for this opportunities thank you you won't say a word come on it's a great honor um 30 years ago we started this organization and I was the first president and currently the president I thank the Lord I'm here [Applause] our next proclamation of May 20 19 is as

[0:08:24] National Safety Council motorcycle safety Awareness Month 9 dose I saw some of you riding in on motorcycles so I know you're here come on up ponderosa MC as members of the region 5 texas confederation of clubs and independence in connection with the support of the National Safety Council TxDOT and local motorcycle enthusiasts would like to remind all road users that the month of May marks a national recognition of motorcycle safety Awareness Month motorists are reminded of the frequency and seasonal return of motorcycle enthusiasts to Texas as roadways during this month due to their smaller size motorcycles may easily be overlooked in regular traffic flow and motorists are encouraged to always be aware of motorcycles at intersections when performing lane changes and when ever nearer passing other vehicles including motorcycles motorcyclists should always operate their motorcycles in a defensive manner and within the rules of the road motorcyclists ask that motorists look twice for motorcycles as they drive both during motorcycle safety Awareness Month and throughout the year therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim May as motorcycle safety awareness month in San Angelo Texas and encourage everyone to share the road safely good morning ladies and gentlemen Thank You mayor City Council for recognizing once again national motorcycle safety awareness month is in May this is what I would like to ask of all of you today everybody here that's a male is the son

[0:10:26] of someone many of you are father's many of you are veterans mom's daughters sisters brothers aunts uncles nieces nephews you name it the only difference between any of you and people that ride it's what we put on us when we ride and it's for safety purposes all we ask you to do is when you're out in your vehicles please just take that extra a couple of seconds to look twice for motorcycles particularly around this time of year because there's gonna be a lot more of us out on the road right now and whether you realize it or not West Texas has some great roads to ride on so you're gonna see a lot of motorcycles around we encourage you please just take the time look twice we don't want to see any accidents and we certainly don't want to experience them all the moms all the dads all the veterans all the brothers all the sisters all the nieces daughters and nephews sons they all want to get home safely to their families and their families want them home safely so we appreciate you looking twice thank you all the city managers to our next proclamation of May 20 19 is Mental Health Awareness Month would all of you who are here to celebrate this please come forward [Music] but mental health is essential to

[0:12:34] everyone's overall health and well-being one in five people will experience a mental illness at some point in their lives and 1 in 20 people will develop a serious mental illness only 44% of adults and less than 20% of children and adolescents would die diagnoseable mental health problems received needed treatment prevention is an effective way to reduce the burden of mental health conditions and there is strong research that animal companionship humor spirituality religion recreation social connections and work-life balance can help all Americans protect their health and well-being with effective treatment those individuals with mental health and other chronic health conditions can recover and lead full productive lives therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim the month of May 20 19 as National Mental Health Awareness Month in San Angelo Texas and encourage all citizens to share the responsibility in promoting mental health wellness Thank You Brendan Guenther and thank you for allowing us for a few minutes to speak mental illness is considered a no caserole illness when you hear somebody who has cancer or some other illness what's the first thing we do offer to bring them food right or help them clean their house or pick up their kids but when you hear somebody has severe depression or schizophrenia what do you do we back away so Mental Health Awareness Month is a time for us to try to stop that stigma and remember that people who have mental illness are sick just like anybody else with any other illness and we ask that you take a few minutes and if you know somebody is sick to ask them what they need ask if you can help them can you bring them dinner help them clean their

[0:14:36] house and there are several amazing organizations in San Angelo that help people with mental health and mental illness and the San Angelo Clubhouse is one of them so I invite you to stop by and come check us out and come for lunch thank you I'm Greg ray executive director with MHMR and I'm just wanted to thank the city of San Angelo and your partnership that you have with MHMR we couldn't do our services without the city without the San Angelo Clubhouse was Texas counseling guidance it takes a partnership and a community to provide these services over last year we provided over 3,700 we provided services to over 3700 people and 39,000 individual services for those two individuals anywhere from case management to counseling psychiatry skills training rehabilitation and cross the services so it takes a community it takes us all to really work together and to make this happen and to make improvements and also work on prevention so thank you all very much for your support [Applause] proclamation of May 6 through 12 2019 National Nurses Week so I think we have some people in the audience who would like to come forward and accept this Proclamation come on up registered nurses in the United States

[0:17:01] constitute our nation's largest health care profession this profession meets the different and emerging health care needs of the American population in a wide range of settings the American Nurses Association as the voice for registered nurses in this country is working to chart a new course for a healthy nation that relies on increasing delivery of primary and preventive health care the demand for services will be greater than ever because of the aging American population the continued expansion of life-sustaining technologies and the explosive growth of home health care services more qualified registered nurses will be needed in the future to meet the increasingly complex needs of health care consumers in this community the cost-effective safe and high-quality health care services provided by registered nurses will continue to be an important component of the United States health care delivery system in the future therefore I Brenda Gunther mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim May 6 through May 12 2019 as National Nurses Week in San Angelo Texas and ask that residents join me in honoring the registered nurses who care for all of us thank you who would like to accept their Proclamation I got my notes right in here because nurses are well known for their nursing notes so good morning to everyone I'm Martha Ketchum a registered nurse for over 40 years most of them are well spent here in San Angelo so don't be counting how old I am now on behalf of all the nurses around the world most especially here in Texas and in Camden County concho Valley my sincerest thanks our mayor Brenda Gunter our community leaders and also to the community National Nurses Week is celebrated annually made a sex to the twelve made it up being the birthday of

[0:19:04] Florence Nightingale the founder of modern nursing nurses dispense comfort compassion in caring even without a prescription based on American Nurses Association we have four million nurses and so there's four million reason to celebrate today so nurses will continue caring for today for healthier tomorrow thanks again to everyone god bless to all these nurses that are present here today and those that are not present thank you also to the community and thank you for the great American America thank you to everybody that's you today thank you [Applause] proclamation of May 5th through 11th 2019 as national travel and tourism week Diana are you here and you have a group

[0:21:09] with you come on Travel has a positive effect on Texas in the nation's economic prosperity and image abroad travel to and within the United States provides significant economic benefits for the nation generating more than two point five trillion in economic output in 2018 with nearly 1.1 trillion spent directly by travelers Travel is among the largest private sector employers in the United States supporting fifteen point seven million jobs in 2018 including eight point nine million directly in the travel industry and six point eight million in other industries Travel is a pillar of economic growth creating jobs at a faster rate than other sectors international travel to the United States is the nation's number-one services export in 2018 Travel generated 256 billion in exports creating a 69 billion dollar trade surplus for the United States in 2018 domestic and international business travelers spent 327 billion in 2017 visitors spent more than 200 million in direct spending and 20 million in local and state tax receipts supporting 3190 jobs and 70 million in payroll dollars in San Angelo therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim May 5th or 11th 2019 as national travel and tourism week in San Angelo Texas and urge you to be a tourist in your own town Thank You mayor city council citizens of San Angelo the city of San Angelo and the chamber of commerce for having the confidence in this wonderful staff here and our efforts in being the destination marketing organization for

[0:23:11] the city of sin we love what we do we love having visitors come in because it does benefit the citizens if not for visitors spending in San Angelo every household would pay an additional five hundred forty six dollars in taxes per year so visitor spending is important to you as well as what we do for for living so thank you so much we encourage you again to be a tourist in your own town and you can become ambassadors for us as we go out and bring visitors to the community to support the economy of San Angelo so thank you very much [Applause] our next proclamation of May 12th through the 18th 2019 is National Police week in May 15 to 20 19 as Peace Officers Memorial Day so I see you coming forward 1962 President Kennedy proclaimed May 15th as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which it falls as police week this week pays tribute to officers who died in the line of duty the San Angelo Police Department will have a number of planned events to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice law enforcement agencies in San Angelo and Tom Green County provide vital public services and play an essential role in protecting those in San Angelo and Tom Green County it is important to recognize their duty of safeguarding

[0:25:13] life and property preventing violence and disorder and guarding the innocent now therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim May 12 through May 18 2019 as National Police week and call upon San Angeles citizens to participate in appropriate ceremonies commemorating law enforcement officers past and present who have rendered a dedicated service to their communities I further call upon all citizens of San Angelo to observe May 15 2000 sirs Memorial Day in honor those Peace Officers who have lost their lives in the performance of duty good morning Thank You mayor Thank You Council for acknowledging National Police week as stated it was signed into law in 1962 by John F Kennedy it's the week we pay tribute to and the sacrifice and service to those officers men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty the first documented officer will lose his life in the line of duty is 1791 currently there have been over 21,000 police officers who have been killed in the line of duty will kickoff Police week next Monday 10:00 a.m. with a fly raising ceremony which is open to the public if you'd like to attend will also be unveiling our statue our base to our new statue bronze statue we're blessed to work in a community center who supports first responders law enforcement in their military there's other cities that don't have the support that that you give us here as we move forward I ask that you continue to pray for all first responders police officers it seems like there's not a day go by that there's officer being shot we're men we're employment mothers and fathers brothers and sisters were just ordinary people trying to protect our community to make it a better place so as we move

[0:27:17] forward please week I ask for special prayers for the Kennedy family and the padrone family and all those other fent loved ones and family members who lost their lives in the line of duty thank you [Applause] our final proclamation of May 18 2019 is simple simply Texas blues festival day and I know we've got some folks here for that one up here screwed on around listen Angela say in the simply Texas blues festival had their - beginning in 2019 and have grown yearly from a couple of hundred visitors to a crowd of over ten thousand guests in 2018 the San Angelo Blue Society presents the 11th annual simply Texas blues festival to further its mission of preserving and promoting the Blues as a historically relevant art form and promoting local musicians and venues and Sanel as a blues music oasis the festival service serves several purposes within that mission namely a competition to select a band and solo or duo act to represents an angel at the yearly International Blues Challenge on

[0:29:19] Memphis's famous Beale Street a fundraiser for the Society's scholarships to local colleges and a free family-friendly concert in historic downtown San Angelo their scholarships to local colleges have surpassed $75,000 to date the festival has brought statewide and national recognition to San Angelo and our music scene drawing acts from as far as Alaska and Canada while including our many local musicians the headliner acts now featured nationally and internationally known blues artists therefore i brenda gunther mayor the city of san angelo texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim May 18th 2019 as simply Texas blues festival day in Scenario Texas in urge all citizens to support a brighter musical future for our great city congratulations who would like to accept the proclamation thank you very much mayor city council and everybody attending this is an important thing for sorry San Angelo what we do is more than just music it's we it's community outreach it's bringing the community together and this festival is put on by sponsors alone so all of your sponsorship dollars go directly to the proceeds all of these great scholarships for all these very deserving student so thank you very much [Applause] with the proclamations completed we will

[0:32:01] move into our public comment sections so we would ask that all people please turn your cellphone's off or on silent with that issues or items that are not on the regular agenda may be raised by the public at this time citizens should speak from the podium begin by stating their name and limit remarks to less than three minutes council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda the council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items do we have anybody here today that would like to come forward and offer any public comment or a silent group this morning okay so we will now move into our consent agenda at this point do I have any items that council would like to have pulled from the consent agenda start with Billy ma'am I don't have any items to pull but I would like to say a few words if I could just in recognition and acknowledgement of our first responders the timing is incredible that they had a proclamation for Police week but thank you that I want to share is about this time last week our family was going through a pretty traumatic event and we had first responders from the fire department and the police department come to a relative's home where the family was in total crisis mode and the professionalism the expertise of all of our first response absolutely helped us not to have a total meltdown as a family and of course with things going on the way they were I wasn't able to get the names of the first responders that were there at my

[0:34:06] brother-in-law's house but I just wanted to give them a thanks and I want to say that while we were in the emergency room waiting room three police officers walked in and they were very concerned they wanted to check on us to see how we were doing and I was able to get their names and I just want to thank officer Hamilton officer Barker and officer Potts for the care the compassion and the concern that they showed not only did they do that but they even prayed with us and being a pretty spiritual person that meant a lot to me and you know that I was sharing with Daniel yesterday that often times we don't remember the words that people say or that they say to you but you absolutely remember the way they make you feel and those police officers come in to check on us made us feel that they were concerned about what happened to us so I just want to say on behalf of my family to our first responders both the fire and the police department we thank you and I tell you we have absolutely the best first responders ever and they were great to us that day and you are appreciated Thank You Man thank you Billy Laine nothing to pull Harry this is a first to approve all in favor of approving the consent agenda say aye with not opposed we'll move on to our special agenda and our special agenda is a administration of oath of office for single-member district representatives one three and five and presentation of certificates of election administered by Judge Daniel with presentation made by mayor Gunther come

[0:36:10] forward okay and I will faithfully execute that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office the duties of the office of the st. Angelo City Council listen Angelo City Council single-member district 1 single-member district 1 of the state of Texas of the state of Texas and will to the best of my ability and will to the best of my ability preserve preserve protect and defend preserve protect and defend the Constitution and laws the Constitution and laws of the United States of the United States and of this state and of this night so help me God you'll help me go congratulations [Applause] so with that certificate election is to certify that Tommy Hebert was duly elected pursuant to resolution number 201 902 7 adopted February 26 2019 counseling the canceling the May 429 election as City Council member single-member district one of the city of San Angelo

[0:39:30] [Applause] certificate of election is to certify that Harold Harry Thomas was duly elected pursuant to resolution number 201 902 seven adopted February 26 2019 counseling the mate for 2019 election as City Council member single-member district three of the city of San Angelo [Applause] this certificate of election is to certify that Layne Carter was duly elected pursuant to resolution number 20 1902 seven adopted February 26 2019 canceling the may 4th 2019 election as City Council member single-member district 5 of the city of San Angelo I [Applause]

[0:41:36] just want to say it was an honor to serve for the first term and I'm looking forward to the next four years thank you so I think at this point we will allow our new duly elected new City Council members to introduce any of their special guests that are in the audience today Tommy I have known Mary okay Elaine I had my family with me my mom and my wife and my little boy Jackson who was not here last time but he was born shortly after I was sworn in for the first term so I am glad that he is here and they are here with me today now we get to have a small little reception kool-aid or champagne or something back there that looks pretty good from up here Oh dreamin dreamin just dreamin so we are going to take a small break we're in break time hey the meetings been called back to order at 9:37 a.m. we will at this point move into our regular agenda and we're going to start with wider utilities presentation containing one the consideration of proving the 2019 water conservation plan and to discussion and direction of customer programs Allyson you're on good morning mayor council today we'll be going through the water conservation plan and hopefully getting you all to adopt the 2019 plan conservation plans are taken and reviewed and updated at a minimum of every five years the previous plan that was adopted was in September of 2014 so 2019 is at our five-year update planning

[0:43:40] year the plan takes into account new technologies and new best management practices will be going into those in the upcoming slides but as required by tcq and also with our loan commitments with Texas Water Development Board we're required to submit this water conservation plan to them with TCEQ is every five years and we actually submit this plan to Texas Water Development Board along with a survey every year and as a part of the consent agenda today you removed the 2014 date and changed to what it is in the bold on the slide as adopted by City Council so we'll be presenting that to you today and if there are any revisions that we see in the future we would come back and present and get you to adopt 2019 revision one revision two or make it the subsequent year if it's not brought back till 2020 or after just I'm going to go through the contents of the water conservation plan it has a section on the importance of water conservation this is a new section to the conservation plan from 2014 but it's just a short blurb on why conservation is important to San Angelo it goes through the history of San Angelo Water Utilities our current supplies geography those type of things and then our utility profile which I want to show to you as we're made up of about 90 percent customers that are in the residential and multifamily sector they use about 73 percent that annual of our annual water usage so we're a primarily a residential and multifamily customer base you can see that 8 percent of our customers are commercial but they're using 15 percent of the water and you can see that with an institutional and industrial one of the primary goals of the water conservation plan is to not only reduce the summer time peak but also to meet a

[0:45:43] GP CD which is gallons per capita per day goal in 2000 the city sent in a goal at that time they were at a 185 GP CD and they wanted to reduce that by 1.2 percent each year so that blue line is the goal of what they wanted to achieve and as you can see since 2005 we've been exceeding that goal in years like 2016 whereas really wet we had a very low GP CD and so you can see after that heavy rainfall event we have creep back up to 118 but we're still meeting the goal that the city has established a part of the plan also establishes goals in the out year so 2020 and 2025 the goal is 140 and 137 GP CD even in 2015 we're exceeding that goal today so San Angelo has done a great job of conserving all of our customers take that to heart but we want to keep the con keep the mindset and so we still project out and want to make sure that we are still meeting our goals the next parts of the conservation plan are the ongoing best management practices proposed water conservation programs our wholesale customer conservation and our drought contingency plan I want to make sure that I highlight that the drought contingency plan is the drought level one two and three triggers those watering schedules in each of those and I want to say that we're not proposed proposing any changes to that section of the conservation plan with that that would require the drought contingency plan is in the ordinance so that would require ordinance changes as well as conservation plan changes okay so the two that I want to really highlight and I'll be going through are the ongoing best management practices and the proposed water conservation programs in the plan the ongoing best management practices or system water

[0:47:46] audits and water loss reports we do these annually through Texas Water Development Board I will say that in the past three years that our water loss has been below 10% which is which is really really good metering of all new connections and retrofitting of existing connections that section of the plant really highlights that we actively meter every customer every fire hydrant we try to make sure that we're accounting for water in all aspects and that the meter itself that's being provided to that customer is of the right sizing the new one that we've implemented since the 2014 is the automated meter reading proactive leak investigation long title for saying that at the beginning of each month our customer service team pulls out a cycle route they'll start with cycle route one and work through the next month it'll be cycle route two but they pull leak reports based out of our AMR system and they start proactively calling those customers that have a continuous leak showing on their meter and give them a heads up saying hey it appears you have a leak are you doing any sort out or watering have you checked your toilets and kind of walk through some proactive steps that they may want to kind of audit their own home to see if they can find that leak we also since 2014 have undergone a rate increase and so the water conservation pricing as I talked about we have the largest sector of our customers are residential and in the residential class how we build them is by a tiered rate structure so as they use more the price per thousand gallon goes up and that does incentivize conservation and then there's the section of the plan of the prohibition of wasting water this includes that 150 feet of water not going down the curb or gutter it talks about no be watering those sidewalks the streets those type of things broken sprinkler heads just best management practices in regards to that yes yes

[0:49:52] bill I'm afraid I'll forget this if I don't ask it now that automated investigation to look as though someone may have a leak so are the meters that we have installed at everybody's connection they take meter readings every 15 minutes and then at midnight each night they're uploaded to our system and so what we can see is for the most part people do leave their home for more than 15 minutes or there is usually a 15 minute span in somebody's home where they're not using water maybe at night when everybody's asleep but when we see that there is movement through that meter every 15 minutes more than likely they have a leak water consumption for a typical residential home is not being used 24/7 throughout the day so that is we those customers get flagged in that system as just an ongoing leak and that's how let me say they it that's true because they called me last summer and said you've got a leak and we would have never seen it because there was no water gathering or any soft space you know spot where a lot of water was coming out but they saw my meter running 24/7 and a lot of water going through there so because of that phone call we were alerted to find get a plumber and deal with it we would have never ever what we're trying to do is get somebody before they get the large bill and then realizing they have a leak so we're trying to take that proactive step in doing that sounds like it works what's the time it is a leaky toilet is is what we find that customers realize that they don't have mine was an oaktree crushing a line and a swimming-pool meter that blew so I mean but it showed up to continue with the ongoing best management practices a water conservation coordinator is a part of the plan and it was a part of the

[0:51:53] plan in 2014 but in May of 2017 Texas House bill 1648 required that cities of our size have a water conservation coordinator on staff and and so we do have that her name's Maria Padilla she's right here to help me if you'll ask anyone questions and the next ones are public information we are active in this in terms of its shown daily what level of conservation what their restrictions are how often you can water daily on TV it's on the radio and then also Anthony does a great job of promoting conservation through Facebook Twitter and those type of outlets in channel 17 we've got a lot of good videos pertaining to water conservation and recently Maria has done some outreach in terms of Earth Day at the County Library and those type of things so we try to provide as much public information as we can on conservation school education is something that we're trying to be more proactive on it is kind of hard to get in the curriculum of the school system but our previous conservation coordinator actually did some presentations at region 15 and did some outreach with some of the schools and so we're going to be trying to make more proactive steps regarding school education but nonetheless we do I have met with several GT students that are wanting to do a special project on water conservation and so we've done that in conjunction with the parks department and kind of showed them around our city facilities and what we're actively doing and the last one is Parks Conservation in the depart parks department has developed water conservation policies and procedures that cover all irrigated parks the parks manager implements a regimen that uses the only the amount of water necessary to maintain viability of those parks and also since the 2014 plan we've had the Kirby Park rainwater harvesting installation and the Bosque rainwater harvesting system and so those have been updated in the plan is that Park conservation plan allow for the city to maintain watering of their parks even

[0:54:00] though we might be in a drought because obviously parks create a great quality of life for the city we invest a lot in our parks currently the parks this section of the plan requires that they still abide by the ordinance which is their current policy today I think that we can look at certain aspects of that but for the most part they followed the same conservation restrictions as anybody else in the city we'd like to look at that so that wraps up the ongoing best management practices and then the next part of the plan is the proposed water conservation programs these are lengthy in the plan but I'll just kind of hit approximately implementing these programs how many customers we could affect and the potential water savings with each one of these the shower head and aerator distribution I'll be talking more about this one here in a little bit but we could potentially reach about 3,000 customers with the approximate water savings of forty five million gallons of water each year that's not only showerheads but you're talking about aerators for the bathroom sinks as well as the kitchen sink to achieve that type of conservation savings the high-efficiency toilet rebate program is one that we've also talked about before I want to mention in the plan we found a number that was incorrect because we were looking at possibly reaching 1,000 customers with that program each year the plan called out one hundred and forty seven million gallons of savings that's actually 16 million the hundred and forty seven million gallon savings would be if we reached 92 hundred customers each year so we'll be making that correction to be more in line with what the program built a high efficiency washer rebate program would encourage people to buy efficient washing machines it's not like toilets toilets today you buy an efficient

[0:56:02] toilet no if you're if you're buying once a day and so it'd be only the retrofitting of old toilets but with a washing machine they do have Energy Star in water saving washing machines but it's not required for those vendors to have that type of efficiencies built into their into their product and with this program you we would potentially bridge half the gap between the inefficient toilet I mean the inefficient inefficient washing machine with the efficient one you could possibly reach 20 100 people annually with this program at about 12 million gallons of savings each year landscape irrigation conservation incentives this one can be done in a whole host of different ways in terms of zero scaping requiring at least the yard or the available acreage around the home to be less than 50% turf you could also look at drip irrigation mulching of flowerbeds there's a lot of different ways of providing conservation incentives for outdoor landscaping but with that one they potentially estimate 4.5 million gallons million gallons of savings annually water surveys for single-family and multi-family customers this is one where we would have somebody go in to audit individuals homes we would likely start with very large residential users and talk about how where do they use water kind of go through everything in the home to exterior the home and try to start educating customers on a one on one basis and targeting their usage and trying to minimize those can we stay on that screen for just a minute yes ma'am you know one of the things that obviously this reflects is that perhaps the cost of replacing a toilet or the cost of a washing machine is somewhat expensive so a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford to do those programs on the other hand it would seem that if we

[0:58:05] take a look at a growing industry of new homes new apartments remodels that it would be a perfect time to try to instead devised or in convince people that they need to make sure these high efficiency toilets are efficient washing machines or the gray water irrigation systems be inclusive in all new development because when you have to go backwards and replace those things some people are not going to have the financial wear ability to do that even shower heads aren't necessarily always compatible with existing plumbing so I think we're asking for a lot of expensive plumbing work in many cases that many people aren't going to be willing to sign up to do so the efficiency of those programs would seem to be a little bit limited and what these proposed conservation programs none of them put them in play and into motion they are all just potential aspects for the city to explore I know in the second part of this discussion we'll be talking about customer programs and I'll go ahead and talk about that we will be requesting that we move ahead with the showerhead an aerator distribution type program versus any of these other ones just as a good segue it's like you said easy easier for customers to install a shower head versus some of our customers may not be able to install a toilet or afford a plumber to do so and so it's a good segue it also provides the most savings for the minimal cost compared to some of the other programs and so we will be I guess requesting that we look more at the showerhead an aerator distribution but I do think what you're saying as far as new home installation I think that we can take we can kind of talk about retrofitting of existing homes and then also talk about potential programs that implement on new construction site because I think the other thing that has happened is gray

[1:00:07] water today is as much reduced in cost than it was when it was originally initiated so I stay on this is a proposed conservation so it's a much enix lesser cost than it used to be so I think there's some real interest here and so on this next slide of proposed programs one is rainwater harvesting I think y'all are all familiar with what that would look like but they estimated if you've if a customer did a minimum barrel size of 55 gallons and we could reach possibly a thousand customers would do in a twenty five dollar rebate we'd be looking at only 1.1 million gallons of savings just to put that back in perspective the shower head and aerators forty five million gallons gray water as we talked about it's not a in the conservation plan it doesn't talk about a specific rebate that we would be implementing to those customers but it is a program that we could look at in talking you know with that industry about what would what dollar amount would incentivize new home construction to go that route the conservation programs for industrial commercial and institutional accounts what we would be doing there is meeting with our large scale industrial commercial and institutional accounts maybe it's the hospitals maybe it's the packing plants maybe it's attic on those type of industries in talking with them about how they can on a large scale basis reduce their water consumption and the plan calls out that we would rebate them $300 for every acre foot of water savings they had annually but that is targeting a very specific class and I believe it was about 8% of our annual water usage in that you know if you combine all three oh yeah not if you combine all three yes sorry I was because if you combine industrial I think it's about twenty seven twenty seven percent but it's 27 percent large users so and they tend to have the largest roofs and other things so in the last proposed water conservation program

[1:02:12] is partnership with nonprofits this is a new one compared to the 2014 plan and we wanted to make sure we include it because we do get approached every once a while from the Extension Service like Texas A&M AgriLife Master Gardeners Association those type of things and so if they were to develop a program here in San Angelo that they felt would be very effective and could help it with our customer base we would want to you know maybe assist with that program name such name something they would do if they were to maybe do some sort of irrigation of a certain area I know that we have the bluffs tank that we had recently done with conservative spot so if they wanted to adopt something similar to that we could maybe provide some sort of funding to assist with that program most of it's going to be education based I think I don't see how that would reduce usage no let's say educate conservation so with that that is the part one of this presentation so it is would like to have y'all's recommendation to approve the 2019 water conservation plan and I will follow up that with some middles to Texas Water Development Board we said there's some questions from Council concerning your presentation Tommy I have one ounce me you may have mentioned it and I may have missed it but in the in the targets and goals it looked to me like we are still going to work with the 2014 targets and goals the reducing the consumption yes we are in like we're keeping with the one point two percent reduction as the goal each year for the out-years sorry I'm a point when one point to get you to low that it's not reasonable I mean at some point that's one question but we're already maybe not far below but below those targets that were set in 2014 correct - do we need to readjust at

[1:04:19] this point I wouldn't know whether up or down but maybe down but do we need to readjust our goals since we have been as much below those as we have since 2014 well in also Allison I assume that that is also relative to the amount of water rain that we get because that has yes yes but then we need to readjust those for any reason I would say that if anything we could adjust them down to this the state goals but they're still about that that range of 137 140 so sign Angela's already yes we are exceeding those goals but much more from what they're already conserving today is I don't see how that would it is possible for everybody to conserve a little bit more but we're already well below the state average in one of the lowest per capita or GP Siddhi cities in the state of Texas Tommy's point was that if we're already that low how much lower I think we're looking at more of maintaining okay all right thanks I'm Harry you had a question or comment I didn't until Tommy spoke oh yeah blame it on town I guess we need to make sure that we we're cautious well how we set these goals since the plan really is going to the TCEQ and the water quality board we really need to make sure that these goals are realistic achievable so you know you could take a look at it readjusting them since we've been so successful over the last five years but I'd caution that in 2011 and 2012 we didn't have water so we kind of need to need to make sure that as we go forward with this the goals we set are achievable you want to go back to that chart real quick Allison just so we can review that know that when you just did before this

[1:06:28] one real quick so we're actually in 2015 well we don't have numbers for 2015 yes this is on a five year so I don't have the 2011 but that number the actual is well in 2010 you can see that it went up from 2005 so it is a higher number then you have and it's okay if you don't but do you have like in 2018 or something more current than 2015 what our water consumption was 28 was this one 18 yeah so since the 2016 rains we have started inching back up so what we don't want to see is this but do we think it's realistic to go lower than 1.2 percent of 115 or 1.2 percent lower than 118 in other words no I don't I don't think that as you are looking at more than 150 140 range and reducing at the one point two from that from the goal number versus what our actuals are well I know but we're significantly under the goal numbers which is what we want to be in the citizens have done an incredible job of underutilizing their water relative to our goals so the question mark is why are we using the one point two percent of the goal number versus looking at what we're actually doing and saying the following for example we believe if we continually set a goal to be at the 118 I'm making this up kind of but if we could maintain the 118 that would be a really good number because do we think we can be at 108 again do we think 115 so the goals are great but reality is more important than the goal or the actual is more important than that goal

[1:08:31] number I think that we could we could look at adjusting possibly the gold down but I wouldn't get too close to the 118-120 range just because of depending on what type of year we have drought or rainfall or no but we can look at bringing that down from the 140-150 range down to state goals and those type of things Allison I'm a this is an assumption but I assume the 155 on the orange line would be 2011 yes it's at 2010 2011 timeframe you yes sir you know Allison may be right mayor we we may need to be careful where we actually set the goal because we will have another year like 2011 to 2010 2011 2012 we will it's just a question of when it certainly would be nice to say the following to try to focus continue on the because if you look at one 2015 16 17 and 18 you average those all out you're going to be somewhere in the 110 number let's say 112 so if we said 112 is a good number can we ask that we try to maintain a 112 you might not want to set the goal there but keeping the goal up at 151 when we're so significantly under performed I shouldn't say underperforming because it's a good thing we performed well against our goal too high relative it's okay and I would look at possibly the hot 125g PCD range because that is I think the state goal is 140 but they have looked at adjusting that down to 125 and so we could adopt more in line with with that there's also a delicate balance between we do want the conservation but we also realize that we have to pay for infrastructure as well we want to bring that conservation as low as we possibly can but don't not hampering our ability to replace

[1:10:34] infrastructure in the future because it came down so low the no haven't looked at revenues and fees no and I respect that but I also respect the fact that the goals have been significant what we're actually doing so if we're trying to project dollars and the water fund to pay for infrastructure we're using the goal numbers as the numbers we'd like to achieve to finance infrastructure we're not hitting those numbers we're hitting the lower numbers so the dollars are going to be lower projecting wise in terms of infrastructure dollars that's all I'm saying and obviously you know we're gonna use as little as we need so but again the goal is a high number relative to what we're producing that's all in it yes Harry a nice of clarification from Alison and Michael because I don't think we're setting the our financial goals at the 1:49 I mean we're not looking to projected income with that that is that's not what we're doing is that correct Michael is correct we've over a five-year average when we did the rate plan they looked at not just one particular year or they didn't even look at what these goals are they were looking at the city's five-year average over that time and they did and basically a baseline or an average usage over those five years and that's how we budget it be those lower numbers yes which will be those lower than others and that you know we we're not going to change your chart I just am saying the following we look like we're heroes because we're significantly under our goal but the reality is the actual numbers are more in line with what we need to continually be at not the goal numbers because our goal isn't to hit the goal correct our goal is to under the goal right question Alison I don't want to be a naysayer but if we lower our go to 112 and we have a year like

[1:12:42] 2011 or 2010 where our actual is at 155 is there any type of penalty from TCEQ for being that much about any penalty anywhere for being that much above you know we were not able to achieve that 112 go and we're significantly above it what know that there's a penalty is like a like a dollar figure a penalty or any type of those things but they will be coming to you and saying are you implementing your conservation plan are you doing other things to proactively get back to if you said 112 so they will be more so directing you to implement certain parts of your conservation plan your program outreach to somehow get you back down to what your goals are thank you yes Harry trying to be quiet on this but it just didn't happen does this particular chart or the way we we set this the goals and and implementation of the conservation plan impact when we go four dollars from for the water water board I mean is this part of that application yes so part of the application is making sure that you have an updated conservation plan make sure you're meeting it I don't know that you get dinged no we don't want to set it too low because but it is a part of the evaluation criteria I do know that you can move forward okay we've drug this out but I'm sorry I asked the question I'm sorry I had to go back to that screen again okay it started with the screen and then the questions followed but thank you for but I just you know we want people to conserve and if we don't want them to think well we set it way up here and you were down here so there's room to use more water you want to say correct we want to we want to maintain going how we are remaining today yes

[1:14:47] before I move on into the next part of the customer programs if you'll I would want a vote on number one and number two separately and so if this is a good time to to do that before I go into the customer programs or I can go into the next one and then do it all at the end whatever we accept that staff recommendation okay as a motion is there a second and Harry as a second is there any public comment no public comment will vote all in favor say aye with known opposed motion passes 6-0 part 2 is the customer programs so in October of last year I came to you and talked about the conservation discounts that we currently have in place talked about I was wanting to remove those discounts and then bring back to you customer programs I could come in its place and I got guidance from y'all that we needed to bring back programs and not just get rid of those without having these to go in its place so what I'm proposing today and I'll step back through what the conservation discount does currently by proposing three programs in the conservation discount place two of them are financial assistance programs and then one is a true conservation program that we've already kind of touched on but it is the showerhead an aerator distribution program so the current conservation discounts we've talked about the issues associated with them they were adopted in 2006 and they were supposed to only total 150 thousand dollars annually at that time since rate increases and proactive conservation by our customers we have seen that grow to almost 450 or over 450 thousand dollars last year and so it is a very costly program and it's in terms of it being a conservation program it doesn't it's not a true conservation program the discounts that

[1:16:50] we give back to customers are scaled in reverse and what I mean by that is as you use more up to the 3,000 gallon mark you get rebated more so it's not giving that person that uses 1,000 gallons more than the person that uses 3 so in that aspect it's not promoting conservation the other part of it is that their conservation discounts given to for different reasons other than conservation and such as and I'm not trying to name names but realtor's and those type of people that have a home listed a residential home that has nobody living in it but they have services in that their name they are receiving this discount because they are not using water there's nobody living there vacation homes that lighten as worthy or just across this city but those are some of the issues associated with the conservation discount there is no sign up for this it's just automatically given in terms of a rebate the following month if you use less than 3000 gallons or less in the previous month so what we're going to be proposing is to financial assistance programs they will be affiliated with the concho Valley Community Action Agency they will help us administer these but we're proposing a low-income assistance program and a senior assistance program both of them have eligibility requirements that they have to be within a 150% of the federal poverty guideline this is how they administer their current programs at concho Valley Community Action Agency they use this with you to utility companies such as gas and electric but this just gives the breakdown of family size and what the annual income has to be at or below for them to qualify for these programs just to go back to that chart because what you find is is the dollar amounts or the annual never mind go ahead forget it

[1:18:53] save it okay so each one I'll walk through the requirements and how we plan to administer each one so with the low-income Assistance Program this would be completely done by the concho Valley Community Action Agency we talked about the eligibility requirements of their income and it be a one-time assistance per customer annually and be on a first-come first-served basis and we what we would do is we would provide $50,000 to the Action Agency 10% of that would go to their administrative costs to vet customers and go through the application process so that would leave about $45,000 annually to customers to be used the customer could come in say that they're about to get cut off or they are delinquent and they just cannot pay their bill and they don't want to be shut off from water they can go to the Action Agency be vetted through that program and then they would help them one time a year so if a customer comes in in February and they need that assistance they are granted it they couldn't be granted that assistance again in August so it works off a calendar year basis the next one is a senior Assistance Program and this is kind of a dual partnership with concho Valley Community Action Agency and the city what we will be using you utilizing the Action Agency for is to vet the individuals for this program so they would check not only the income which is the same as the chart previously shown but also to make sure that there the 65 years or older and what they would do is communicate back to us that customer ID at this location is eligible for the elderly or for the seniors assistance rates and what that does is take that volumetric rate in that first year and reduces that by 50 percent so we're looking at a maximum savings of three dollars and fifty four cents annually I mean per month sorry not annually monthly and that is really in line with what we're giving today in terms of

[1:20:56] conservation discounts it's in that three to four dollar range this would be a two year enrollment so once the customer is enrolled in the program they would receive those rates for two years and at that time they would have to go back to the Action Agency and re-enroll and prove income and those type of things what we would be doing with the cost of this program is paying concho Valley Community Action Agency $5,000 to basically perform the eligibility checks and then communicating back to us and then the rates would be adjusted on that customers monthly bill so with before I go into the showerhead an aerator I'll happily answer any questions about the financial assistance programs were proposing so just to make sure we're all on the same page so on the original conservation plan that was approved in 2006 is that what it was yes the conservation discounts there was that was not a program in created to address low income it was a conservation based program not an income conservation project but what we see today is the individuals receiving that credit we see both cases some that are trying to conserve and then some that are using it more as their a single elderly individual that just receives that discount by the nature of their low usage but it is of more of a financial issue to them whenever we talked about taking the discounts away that they rely on that three and four dollars and so what we're trying to do is build a program that meets those they still would benefit in the same way yes as long as they qualify yes as long as they qualified but as I in in these programs are the senior assistance program isn't a financial incentive even if they keep using up to say ten thousand gallons they're billed at rates the same as another individual so as they use more water they still are receiving those

[1:23:00] rates that are at the higher charges conservation rates are based off of three million gallons a three thousand gallons a month say though because you mentioned the three thousand a minute ago that's the current policy if they use three thousand gallons or less they get this they they get a discount and so what this one would do is only allow in that first year which is zero to two thousand gallons where they'd get a discount in those first tiers but even if they continue to use more they still get this discount if they meet the eligibility requirements okay do I have questions from Council what before we move on to the next slide a quick one if I'm not mistaken did when we talked about this originally the amount that we're giving for the savings for conservation now it has exceeded what the cost of the actual treatment of 1,000 gallons of water is is that did we talk about that or much know that we talked about it exceeding the treatment cost but we were basically saying that they're receiving the first potentially first thousand gallons for free is how he equated that a customer using 1,000 gallons was just the base cost yes because it's 10% of the base cost and volumetric charges they are ultimately getting that first thousand gallons for free yes okay go ahead and so then the third and last program would be a true conservation program and so implementing the showerhead an aerator program and distribution this is no cost to the residential individuals that want to be a part of this program we would basically have some sort of form that they would fill out in terms of their customer ID their location may be approximate year their home is built and we can always assist with those type of things but try to have a targeted approach that we're going to some of the

[1:25:03] older homes in San Angelo to install these retrofits so that we are seeing those savings but mainly the cost of implementing this program is for the product itself so buying the showerhead the aerators and they come in kits that we can provide to the customer of how to install them those type of things and then tracking customers that have received these products and ultimately would request that they was install those programs within 30 or install those products within 30 days new shower heads fit old plumbing our they do okay most of them are pretty standard in terms of where they disconnect and reconnect right so with that the the summary of all programs and an Associated cost would be to remove the current conservation discounts the low-income assistance which would be a $50,000 annual payment to concho Valley Community Action Agency the senior Assistance Program which has the administrative fee to the action agency but also we would be giving discounts to those elders or to those senior assistance eligible customers and then the shower had a narrator conservation program at approximately sixty thousand dollars annually so with that this is the the recommendation and if we want to move forward with that this wouldn't be the last time that you get to have a vote regarding this over these programs we'd follow it up with the first reading of both the removal of the conservation discounts and the implementation of the senior assistance rates and we'd have to [Music] bring back contracts with concho Valley Community Action Agency and then next would be the second reading of those both removal in addition to the ordinances possibly in the first meeting of June and then we could implement these programs starting July 1 what we would do today is take a vote to say that we support the recommendation of

[1:27:05] Part two from then you would start to talk to the partners that we're going to work with and then bring back to City Council a first read basically yes the first reading first reading for us to take a vote on yes and have public comment on yes I have a motion for approval wait a minute this is just a discussion item you wouldn't have to take a vote general consensus of direction for Allyson I tell you move forward every single Tom Harry let's say move forward but I have one question about the 10% cuz it doesn't make sense if you do your 10% off of your base rate you're you're getting down into what it actual operating cost is but if you that to just the water portion of it not base rates on that application how much would that affect it for I haven't read members on that one there would still be the thought that there would be those discounts going to customers not for a conservation measure but by just the nature of a vacant home and those type of things we wouldn't be in the situation where the 10% is being applied to our operating costs having the meter and having service there it would just be applied to the one to three thousand gallons it would cut down on the amount of the discount but it would still bring us back into the black of I don't think that we can do that and do all the other programs that I just implemented because that would be essentially four different basically spending a sword yes so I think it's either you implement these programs that we just talked about those three or we could look at revisions to to what we do currently but I think that

[1:29:08] that's you would be a set you would be reaching I think effectively the same kind of in goal I'm just wondering about if people aren't going to go through those revisions of trying to meet if they already have it and they're still using less than three thousand gallons but they're not getting any credits so Marcus identifying conservation which is where we started with this is just because you use a thousand gallons doesn't and you're by yourself doesn't mean you're conserving it just means that one person in the household so that's the amount of not concerned mark is if you're going to have a conservation program you have to be able to monitor what conservation is Marin this is what this is exactly what it is we want to go back to you and take a look at and make sure that it is a conservation plan because the previous one from 2006 really wasn't you know so at this point what Allison has presented truly is conservation usage savings correct is right especially since it was applied to the base rate building okay so you have support from counsel to move forward in a good presentation and good information okay item B I think I'm passing this down them down the way everybody else's okay item B public hearing the first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 10 traffic control article 10 point o3 operation of Motor Vehicles division 2 speed limits altering the maximum speed limit on East Avenue D beginning at the intersection of South Oak Street

[1:31:09] extending east to Russ Street here this morning before you to do to present just that we are proposing reducing the speed limit on East Avenue D on that roadway that bisects Fort Concho from a 30 mile an hour speed limit down to a 20 mile an hour speed limit basically on the map there you can kinda see highlighted in red the the road segment that we're talking about and it would just be like so between South Oak Street and Russ Street that area it functions I mean you can see it bisects Fort Concho right there it's functioning as a parks and grounds atmosphere it's a very short section and when we're looking at the speed limit of 30 miles an hour and what is currently allowed or accepted in a park atmosphere that twenty mile an hour speed limit is a generally accepted speed when you're talking about the amount of volume and pedestrian impact along a particular roadway within a part mr. Park it's a tourism it's a tourism and visitor and when we say park we're talking about pedestrians and and high volumes of pedestrians and again there's some of the bullet points that reiterate what what currently exists bisects Fort Concho 30 miles per hour and there is a high volume of pedestrian traffic due to the tourism and the visitors within that particular area there it isn't there a portion of it that is 20 miles per hour existing because it's a school zone during during certain hours yes ma'am which is what causes the confusion because you have a street that is pedestrian tourist Park right school zone in between and people not slowing down this would make it much more consistent much more reliable for traffic and

[1:33:12] drivers to Ted here too in the proposal before you it's a quick presentation to know but it's pretty straightforward the proposal for before you is to amend the ordinance to allow for that particular road segment to be reduced from the speed limit of 30 miles an hour down to 20 miles an hour between South Oaks and Russ Street right lane you have a question or comment of traffic fort during school time how much is that Avenue D utilized it's utilized quite a bit as it currently stands again we're well there's some more studies that we can put that we're putting together to actually determine what that flow is and how much of it is school related in and non school related I know that right there on the backside of rust of Russ Street ministries there's an alleyway there that they're utilizing as a as a driveway a private drive for drop-off and pickup so some of those will have to be accommodated but that 20 mile an hour speed zone still allows the access there it just slows everybody down and gives pedestrians a much much safer atmosphere to be with him looking at the impact of if that possibly was under closure again we're doing some studies around that what those studies bring forth will make that determination as to if if additional action is needed or or what that action may be airy yeah I think one of the questions I have is Fort Concho kind of is like number of parks that we've got in the community and the speed limit in those parks I believe is 20 miles an hour I think to be consistent because you got so much pedestrian traffic in that particular area that this makes sense to me I think it's it's a safety issue not only for the children of Fort Concho school but our visitors that are coming to Fort Concho that have to cross these to have a nudey I think slowing the traffic down will will certainly help I move approval staff recommendation is

[1:35:19] there a second a second by Harry do we have public comment you have ten I traveled this street all the time I've noticed the measurement tools out there and your and before you have the effects in on what the measurements are you're you're proceeding with the reduction of speed limits I tried like I said I travel this all the time the scenarios that have been painted I do not see maybe on I on a when they're having a big fort function which is occasionally but not all the time when school is getting out you have about six to ten cars parked on the on the on the curbs and I can see a reduction at that at that time it's when school is being released and they're parking over there because the school the street that the school is on is not sufficient for for the traffic at that time so I would I do not like this speed reduction I thank you any further public comment but no further public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes six zero item C public hearing and first reading of an ordinance approving case z19 - five and rezoning from the low-rise multifamily rm1 zoning district to the general commercial CG zoning district on 2.0 for seven acres located in the 5100 block of West Houston Hart John you're on Thank You John James Director of Planning and Development Services this

[1:37:22] is a rezoning request you can see on the map here it's a small piece requesting rezoning from rm1 which is a multi-family housing district to the commercial district you can see here on our future Land Use Plan all of this area in red including the subject tract is planned long term for commercial already so in that way it's consistent you can see the current zoning there in orange on the right it's currently zoned as part of that multi-family housing but again the long term plan would would be for all of that to become commercial which this zoning request would do just a couple of pictures in case there are questions you can see the track parts of the tract or are not flat and so some of that will have to be addressed in the development and you can see there are homes there in the background just a couple another couple looks this is the Houston heart expressway off to the right in that picture and then the Bluffs area back to the back of this this does fit with our future language plan as I mentioned it is along the freeway frontage road which also lends itself to either commercial or apartment development but commercial definitely is acceptable there as well this has been zoned for apartments since 1997 which has not developed in that area and so a change to something that might develop on that property is is warranted at this time we did send out our notifications to the surrounding property owners did not receive any opposition as I mentioned you can see here there's that cul-de-sac of homes that would back up to this property I believe the developers met with those home as I said none of them have expressed any opposition to this I think they're comfortable with what's being proposed staff does recommend approval planning

[1:39:25] commission also recommended approval at their April meeting by five one vote with that I'll be happy to answer any questions what was the one vote against it I think I might defer to miss Jackson if she's still here but she she expressed some concerns about the proximity to those homes and I think that that's my recollection of her opposition do I have questions from Council Connolly I don't have any questions mayor but being this is in my district when I heard about it I drove over to the cul-de-sac and walked around and and looked at you know the lay of the land and what it looked like and John is exactly right the developers did meet with some of the residents I don't know that it was all of them on that cul-de-sac but they were okay I had a particular interest in observing because I've have had a situation where commercial backed up to residential and it did not work out very well in the long run so the fact that the developers took time to visit with the residents see what their concerns were I appreciated that and I would make a motion that we approve the zone change accept the motion if there's no further questions from Council and there's a second with that is there any public comment yes Steve Hampton this I watched this on the TV while they were evaluating this there there was no mention of how many units are you they were going to put in there I don't recall it all they there is going to be a benefit to the there's going to be a benefit to the housing and that the the runoff will be under control where maybe it hasn't in the past there was no mention of traffic pattern how many units are going to be there we

[1:41:28] don't know we don't know there's again we don't have measurements wait a minute this is going from it's taken away the low-rise multifamily to general commercial so there's no conversation here about apartment complicate situation thank you very much with that we'll take a vote all in favor of the rezoning say aye with none opposed motion passes six zero we will now move into item D public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 12 Planning and Development exhibit a zoning ordinance section 511 off street parking standards and section 512 loading standards establishing new standards and revisions to existing standards for parking and loading John thank you again John James Director of Planning and Development Services let me start off by saying there's a there's a lot in here and it's in some ways a little bit complicated I'm gonna go through this fairly quickly Biff police stop me if there are particular items that you have questions about we did run this through the development task force and of course it did go to the Planning Commission and we believe we've addressed most of the concerns that were raised but let me first say that the reason that this all started was this item number two here to reduce the minimum parking requirements as we review developments we realize that for a lot of the types of developments we are requiring too much parking basically this is a trend around the country around the state cities looking at their parking standards and realizing that for every single business we don't have to have a huge sea of parking in front of them and so most of what you'll see today is a reduction in the it's for parking although as I'll mentioned there are a few items where we

[1:43:29] are either increasing the requirement are changing the standards but again one of the reasons we have these parking standards is this number one here looking at neighboring properties we do have issues particularly in areas where older properties were built without sufficient parking and it does create an issue for either adjacent commercial businesses or adjacent residential neighborhoods where that commercial parking for example spills out into other areas and creates concerns and so that's kind of the the reason we have parking standards to begin with is to ensure that at least most of the parking needs of a business or an office or even homes or apartments are met on the site of that business the ordinance also does look at spacing maneuvering making sure we have adequate fire lanes those sorts of things and then another thing we've done in this is looking at more flexibility and more alternatives and I'll get into some of that as well ensuring that there are opportunities for either variances or what we call an alternative parking plan to ensure that there is some flexibility built into these standards so the first I want to talk about when new parking is triggered right now there's no change to the current ordinance a new building requires parking expansion of an existing building both of these require you to meet parking but if you're expanding what we're terming in a land area something that doesn't require a building permit there's no trigger for parking for that say a miniature golf course for example they're not building a building but they're geographically expanding the extent the footprint of that site this would say that they do have to accommodate parking for that expansion under this proposed ordinance but for an expansion of less than 25 percent they only have to provide parking for the newly expanded area they don't have to go back and fix any

[1:45:31] previous substandard parking if they're if it's for a small expansion also note no change from our current ordinance if you're expanding the the building or if a change of occupancy is expanding more than 25% then the use must comply with full standards that's that's no change from today but if a change of occupancy results in less than 25% new parking requirement the current ordinance would say you have to completely bring your whole site up to the full parking standards of today this would say that you only have to meet the new parking for the expansion so if you're an older but older business that doesn't meet today's standards if you change from say a retail store to a restaurant all of a sudden you have to meet all the new parking standards of today and that's that's resulted in some businesses not being able to go into a location because they just couldn't meet on that side the new parking stands making sure we understand that there's a huge difference in the downtown business district because these parking rules are not applicable to the downtown business district that's correct that won't change in this ordinance the central business district businesses are exempt from these parking requirements that's that's correct this ordinance does also propose a parking lot permit we do not currently have that today if you come in for a building permit then we look at the parking requirements for that if for some reason as I mentioned earlier you're expanding a use that doesn't trigger a building permit and we have no ability to review your site for meeting those parking standards so if you're going through the building permit site plan process this wouldn't change it would be just the same as it is today a building permit if you've applied for a building permit and you in that permit

[1:47:33] you also have already designated the parking you're not having to pay for a building permit and a parking lot permit no no one permit that would cover the new building and the parking lot attached to that one permit one price that's correct now and so this parking lot permit would basically only apply if you're not also getting a building permit it would be for if say you're you're expanding your parking lot but without any building expansion that would trigger this parking lot permit so that we could ensure that the parking spaces are of sufficient size you've got proper separation and all of those sorts of things parking location right now we have a provision that says you can provide some of your required parking off-site it could be on an adjacent property for example but it has to be within 400 feet this basically changes that to 500 feet to give a little bit extra distance there to allow you to count that parking a little bit farther out we also already have in the ordinance what we call an alternative parking plan but it does not apply to stacking or loading spaces stacking spaces might be a queue at a fast-food restaurant for example so this expands that alternative parking opportunity for those stacking or loading spaces loading would be like for a truck parking for deliveries that sort of thing so it basically again expands the flexibility that we have to address unique situations we also looked at our minimum dimensions this type of parking here which we call tandem parking it's it's basically parallel parking but on a particular site our current ordinance does not technically allow for that and doesn't establish standards for how big those spaces need to be we've used sort of the flexibility we have in the in the ordinance to allow for those in some

[1:49:35] circumstances but this basically codifies it in the ordinance that those are allowable types of spaces and establishes a standard size for those at 9 feet by 23 feet does that cover an f-350 pickup truck likely would I mean in it might be tight depending on the length of vehicles but that's a standard kind of across-the-board industrial standard for parking spaces that that most cities used so 18-wheeler be able to use that no and and there they're going to be larger vehicles that might not fit in those spaces just like our standard regular space which is NaN by 18 you'll notice in parking lots some of those big vehicles stick out quite a bit but we try to those standards are basically minimum standards no standards might be different in San Angelo Texas because a large number pickup trucks versus a more urban City where SUVs might be the standard or whatever so I just want to make sure that when we're doing this we understand the nature of San Angelo and that that accommodates those larger pickups not Arab but pickup we believe they do these are consistent with our peer cities and cities around the state we know that you know if you look at some more urban cities even in the state or around the country a lot of cities look at what they call compact spaces that allow for smaller spaces we've chosen not to pursue that partly because of the concern you raised of larger vehicles in parking lots and forget the ball hitch that is a company to attract another six inches right I need some time right now this is one of the probably a big one of the bigger changes in the ordinance right now our ordinance says only required parking has to be paved as we looked at around it some of our peer cities Abilene Midland Wichita Falls Lubbock a lot of those

[1:51:38] cities all parking if you're building a parking lot in providing parking it has to be paved and so this ordinance proposal would would require that as well not just for the required so for example a Wal Mart Walmart's provide two or three hundred parking spaces more than what our ordinance would require under our current ordinance only the required parking has to be paved the rest of it could be it could be dirt caliche gravel we you know even grass and so this would say if you're building a parking lot for a business all of the parking you're providing would have to be also it would have to be maintained passable and drivable that's basically a way we get a number of complaints about parking lots being pothole filled hard to drive through and again this doesn't mean there are a few cracks in the parking lot this would be where it's it's really not drivable or passable and part of the reason for this is to insure fire lanes and things are accessible to those we're not gonna be in the business of driving through parking lots and making sure that there's no potholes right no this would only be in a circumstance where it's literally difficult to even drive a vehicle on the parking lot that would trigger that yes sir yes so a big-box store comes in and puts in a parking lot they're only required to have 50 spaces but there's already 200 spaces there has to maintain that is those hundred and fifty do they land if they own the land they have to if it's a normal situation where it's one single lot with the whole thing they would be responsible for all of it if it's a shopping center for example those typically have agreements among all the shopping center or the shopping center

[1:53:41] owner or all the tenants have some responsibility for that it was curious like so we're like if they lease it they only lease or purchase - so - X amount of space the balance of that area as long as you're saying it's covered and take care of we're good yeah it would either be the tenant or if they're not leasing all of those spaces somebody owns that land underneath it or they would be responsible are we creating a code enforcement issue here we always do with these I mean I don't believe so I mean I don't think the the circumstances that we've seen where a parking lot is has become basically unusable is is pretty rare we're not gonna be going in there and citing them for primarily that's what you said I think primarily it would be if a it's a fire truck or police cannot you know get to the structure because the parking lot is so horrible then it triggers that level soreness would also require that if they have lighting it doesn't require that you have parking lot lighting but if you do it has to be shielded so that it doesn't create spillover glare and lighting on to adjacent properties so now this kid the next few slides are about the actual parking requirements the number of parking spaces required for a particular type of use so this is just a list of uses with no changes single family to family dwellings schools which you all reviewed back in 2017 we didn't touch those we think those are in good shape entertainment oriented facilities and places of public assembly we thought those were pretty well on track where they need to be so pictures of these type of uses where we've proposed decreasing the parking

[1:55:43] requirements as I mentioned most of the uses where we looked at the parking we are recommending decreasing those including apartments group living banks and financial institutions I won't read through all of those but just remember tale pretty much any shopping business which is most of the businesses we see are included under retail so this list is pretty comprehensive in terms of that we didn't look at the percentage of uses across the whole city but I would say the vast majority of uses would see a decrease in the parking there are a few uses that it may increase or decrease just depending on the particular use of daycare for example our current daycare standards are based on the number of employees that's often difficult you know it's tough for us to go to a business say well how many employees do you have or how many are you going to have and if you expand your employment do you have to put in new parking so one of the things we try to do in this ordinance is get completely away from any parking standards based on the number of employees and looking at our peer cities almost everyone goes by just square footage floor area like we do with retail and other uses and I'm not suggesting we change it but it would seem odd like daycares because there's obviously some significant pick up times and drop-off times that would create a different issue and a manufacturer in a warehousing or a fitness center because I think there's some key hours that people go and do these things the daycare is just just the price it's in this list but well and one of the one of the things we do for daycares is we can count spaces if they have like a drop-off Lane we can count basically those spots within their drop-off Lane as part of some of their required parking some of those are in neighborhoods right well and that's the flipside here is we we want to make sure

[1:57:45] that daycares are providing sufficient space either through parking space and normal parking spaces or drop-off lanes so that they're not creating backups into the street and into neighborhoods so it's just odd to have daycares in this list because all the other three you know bullet points here are situations businesses that aren't normally just put into a neighborhood well and all this list is are the the list of uses where parking could decrease for that type of use or could increase depending on so a daycare that's much larger the building is much larger but has few employees they might actually be required more parking than they do today but a daycare that's very small in terms of building footprint but has a lot of employees that might have less parking requirement since we're shifting from number of employees to building square footage it's one that we couldn't say well parking is just increasing or decreasing it could go both ways just depending on the particular building and again don't forget we have that alternative parking that if there's a very unique situation a daycare moves into a big building with a gym and it's got a huge amount of space we always have the ability to take that into account if the parking calculation from the ordinance looks very out of whack compared to other daycares and so then we have a few uses here where we've actually proposed increasing the parking hospitals hotels movie theaters religious institutions so churches and then restaurants and bars those are ones that we've seen as we've reviewed projects that have come in we sometimes see these becoming a problem I will say that in looking at most churches they are already meeting those standards restaurants generally do but we have had some situations where

[1:59:48] restaurants have created issues because they don't provide enough both the main movie theaters in town meet both the old and the new standards hotels is another one that we've seen some issues with when hotels are full they're spilling way over into the street and into adjacent areas in some cases new the hotels are full and our two major hospitals also meet both our old standards and these propose new standards so that's not going to be an issue for them either except when the Avengers plays and then there's no parking then we've also as you mentioned have suggested a few changes to our stacking and loading standards we didn't have any standards for pharmacies so we just lumped them in with banks the ordinance already has a you know a drive-through standards for banks we just said pharmacies would have to meet that same standard we provided some flexibility for multi-lane car washes basically we have a standard today that says a car wash Bay has to have so many stacking spaces behind it but some of these larger ones that have four bays wide don't necessarily need so many stacking spaces behind each one so as you get larger the number of spaces behind each bay door can decrease also allowed some flexibility behind gasoline pumps similar to the carwash spaces the more gasoline pumps you have the fewer spaces behind each one you would need to accommodate queuing again these the reason for these are basically to prevent cars from backing up into the street and then we added a provision right now in commercial areas if you're adjacent to residential you have to provide some sort of screening but if it's across the street you don't have to and so this just says if you're gonna put like a loading dock for a commercial business that is across the street from

[2:01:51] residential you would also have to screen similar to if you backed up not across the street that is a quick overview be happy to answer any questions I'm gonna start with Tommy Tom Harry Lane and Billy it is an awful lot to try to digest even in reading the background material beforehand and then listening to John explained this well I think what you know what over the past couple years I visited with several people that were really upset about how many parking spots we were requiring them to have in their building for their building and they're like you know most they're requiring me 17 spaces at most I might have five or six cars in any given time so the additional expense for that business to put in all those additional parking spots was huge and they're empty most of the time so I think they're bringing this forward with some reductions for is a good thing and I think it's well thought out by type of business so we better understand certain businesses require different standards because of the nature of their business so instead of treating everybody like one type of business so I know they put a lot of work effort into it I know I've received a lot of phone calls from people concerned about it but I also will say the following those concerns from those citizens have been addressed in this presentation so I feel good about it I'm glad to hear that mayor because one of my concerns is I have not had enough time to really go through and think of scenarios in certain situations so I don't know if what I would be supporting or not supporting the potential impact that it would have on a business for instance if you look at where the grill

[2:03:53] is and that spread store and everything it looks like they need some more parking spaces Corral you know for for that area so what impact will this new audience ordinates have on them it won't because they are ignorant existing business so they you you would be grandfathered in you they can't make you add now that you already have and so but that's just an example that's a good thing is it's a lot to take in and and to just you know get the information from me and maybe everybody else on the council already had all this information but for me to just see it for the first time when I got this agenda I've just been processing it so I think that's a great example of a case where the parking from the beginning was under Mayor of I may as well next time when we bring it back for second reading we'll put it on regular agenda for more discussion so Billy in case you have those scenarios that pop up you know over the next couple of weeks we definitely will be prepared to discuss that so we won't put on a concern we'll put on regular agenda for further discussion and if you think we need to but it also can be pulled from consent consent with additional questions if you have them so either way and that's fine you know because the next two weeks I'll just do go through my what-if scenarios leave it on consent and we Billy can pull it if she or anybody else could pull it if they find additional questions move to in a second so public comment I'm Steve Eustace and Johnny we've worked together on going through this and I'm generally supportive of a new parking ordinance but I have a few questions and concerns I know that we have some flexibility and I want to just make sure that that's really an opportunity to be flexible because we

[2:05:54] have old buildings of North Chaplin in South Chaplin there's no way they can meet parking requirements and especially older restaurants that may have been closed if they don't have the land they don't have the land we also my commercial brokerage friend we were not able to sell a building on North Chadbourne because we were gonna have to put a parking lot in the back it had some gravel back there for parking but you're the only way to get to it was in Halle so my understanding is we're gonna have to pay the ally and put in a parking lot and the estimates for cost were more than what the guy was trying to buy the building for so there's just some instances that I want to make sure we don't put ourselves in a box let's stop let's not because I if you bring up a lot of things and we'll forget about but let's go with the first one if an existing building a building is a restaurant and it closes in a new restaurant goes in there obviously that land and that building in the parking I think would be grandfathered you can't make what you can't make let's ask the question now if it was not a restaurant and going to a restaurant then it would trigger that if it was a restaurant going to a restaurant it wouldn't unless the original restaurant was closed for more than 12 months and then they lose any non-conforming grandfathered status and they would have to come into compliance well but how could they I mean that I think it's a good point because if it's just 12 months it'd be one thing of it was five years but if it's 12 months that's pretty soon and if you have businesses on the left and the right of that building parking how do they get more parking and would you not want the restaurant to go in as a new business versus leaving it empty because of this

[2:07:58] confusion about the parking well and I would say that that applies today and so this ordinance on the one hand doesn't change that but this ordinance does add that additional flexibility and so we have an administrative process where I can approve an alternative in a situation like that if I choose not to do that they can appeal that to the Zoning Board of Adjustment separate from that they also have the ability to just seek a variance from the Zoning Board of adjustment for any situation like that so there's there's multiple opportunities for flexibility built into this ordinance and the ordinance proposal that we have for you today actually expands that flexibility beyond what we have today is I think the one thing that was up there was the restaurant bars would be requiring more parking than before so that's the one category that would require more unlike others and a little concerned about the 12-month thing but if there's a pathway to let me add one more thing that would address at least part of Steve's concern and I thought I had a bullet point I may have just skipped over it accidentally but one of the things that we have added here is in that flexibility is to allow on Street spaces to count for some of your required parking and now in a situation like north chapter and where there's on street parking at least the two or three spots that might be in front of that business right now we don't count any street parking towards the requirement for a business this ordinance would allow us to do that so it provides some additional flexibility there and that would help in at least a little bit in a situation like that it wouldn't fix all of what Steve addressed but I think with the additional flexibility here it would it at least gets us closer to where we would want to be okay next point Steve let's talk about it I

[2:10:02] want to say I'm not opposed to the parking garnets in Johnny's been really good we had a really good working session at planning and we realized there's just some tough issues well but you're the business and so some of us that aren't in that business don't think up the issues as you're presenting them so I think it's good if you present them we have a chance to talk through them to bring us into the language which we weren't familiar with so in an area that is older warehouse let's say go Chris dovell Road or out Arden Road there's a couple of warehouses it's a fenced yard so you've got parking and you've got maneuver or loading space whatever we've got a lot of those properties that are all weather types surface are gravel or caliche my understanding is those are now gonna have to be paved is that correct they would be grandfathered I assume number one so if your Spears the thing that happens when you sell real estate when you sell something that's grandfathered the new buyer knows if I build on or I change something I'm gonna have to bring all this up to code and he gets fearful of what's gonna happen in the future to him well that would apply to plumbing codes electrical codes fire codes any business oh yes my question is is all parking and maneuvering and truck space and everything like that required to be paved or is there some instances we can use gravel or pearl or Colleen I was saying this is just me talking and I'm not John James so but I would think in an industrial commercial area that rules and regulations would be different than they are in a typical Sherwood Way or something I don't know I could be wrong I'll answer it in a couple of different ways one in certain circumstances like mr. Eustace is talking about the contractors yard or an outdoor storage facility those could still be caliche or gravel so if it's if it's used for it

[2:12:07] at storage you know operating trucks for that business we would consider that part of a contractors yard that wouldn't have to be paved but for an area that might be customer or employee parking that would have to be paved but in that respect that's no different than today's ordinance if one of those businesses again normally it would be exempt because it's grandfathered but if for some reason it wasn't grandfathered and had to meet today's standards that that type of parking at least the required amount would have to be paved today but that excess outdoor storage yard area would not okay as well as far as parking for now that there's certain spaces now there are required to be paved the issues that we do face whenever we have those situations were vehicle or parking is allowed in certain area that is not paved of course the complaints we get is if it's dirt surface especially around a residential area or around other businesses is that bird dirt dust kick up and when it rains it because it creates a mud conditions and that mud inevitably ends up on our streets and that becomes an issue which can be damaging charged treats the sweet sweeper so on our end we just want to make sure that we're taking care of that part of it where it doesn't affect our streets either and our citizens really with all that kick up of Durgan what have you okay all right Steve next so if if someone has if someone's lacking two three spices and that can put them in the back of their building but they have to use the alley to get to those spices I would look for a different property and then let that building sit there in the point is is not I'm kind of joking but on the other hand you know it's one of the things that if you're a business you want parking you have a good business without good parking so

[2:14:12] obviously when you buy a building and you know you're gonna need a lot of parking you're going to want to buy a building with a lot of parking so do we have to pay the alley and maintain the alley ourselves if we use it to get to a parking space yeah the short answer is yes that under today's ordinance and this ordinance isn't proposing to change that if a business wants to use parking say in the rear that they would have to use the alley to access then the portion of that alley to get to that parking area would have to be paved to the same standard as if you were having a drive aisle that's on the property as part of the parking lot basically we hope that that would be a rare case one and again I suspect tell me if I'm wrong that there could be a application for variance on that is that correct and so it wouldn't be a hardcore no it would be can we have a variance to allow for that right I mean I don't know I'm just asking that's a question not a statement I don't know I know that variances can happen for various reasons but one of the variances it's not allowed in most city ordinances it's too expensive to do that so just paving an alley I don't really want to pay it cuz it's gonna cost me $60,000 that's not a good excuse for a variance so and I don't know the answer to lattes I just want to make sure that we have some flexibility that and you've already clarified storage space for contractors and I want to make sure we understand that maintenance you know everybody's got parks we all did so as well make sure that we're not talking about you know we know when we've got a fixer but I brought that up a minute ago that we're not gonna be in the business of

[2:16:15] patrolling to find potholes and parking lots first of all your insurance company is going to be one of the first persons who breaks it up and says if you don't fix it your insurance policies canceled or if somebody trips in that hole insurance company is going to be upset with the liability with that so there in that case you know most of us have to have insurance that covers our parking lots for all those reasons okay and it's John's concern so okay thank you any other public comments and yes Steve I'd rather have a building in effect being used than vacant deteriorating to answer your question that would be my preference and thank you for making that happen I can completely see how Steve's coming because we don't want we don't want to get into it to where we're costing the business owners time and money so John can we have an ordinance that covers a hundred percent of everything right right so variances are in effect and I think this the street that's coming to my mind just constantly is Chadbourne not the central business district but in areas where there might be a there might be a building that you're trying to sell and it might have been something in the past where it had a compatible amount of parking for it and a business wants to go in there and it might not be it might not be it might be restaurant to gym or gym to restaurant but one of the things you find was parking is a fine if you don't provide enough parking for your customer base the customer base gets pretty irritated it's gonna keep it to your benefit to try to have a parking lot that takes care of the number of customers that you think are going to come in and if someone wants a hole-in-the-wall restaurant just mom and pop they want to keep it small so they

[2:18:18] buy a building they want to renovate it but the parking is insufficient they need some parking in the back have a case-by-case we have worked with a number of businesses in that exact situation and provided them that flexibility to provide less I will say we're at we're actively currently looking at a couple of issues though we're a an older building in business does not have sufficient parking and it's creating a spillover impact on the adjacent business and so that business is parking lot is being taken up next door places and so that's part of what we're trying to balance right right it's typical of many of us who own parking lots oh yeah so you know that don't they're not using your business and yeah yeah and that's why going through a flexible like an alternative parking we might be able to look at the surrounding area and make a judgement of whether or not allowing fewer parking spaces in that location would create those spillover effects which we wouldn't want to do on those adjacent businesses Thank You Jillian I might have it driving around st. Angelo Dayton well we can't have an ordinance that covers a hundred percent and so what you try to do is create an ordinance that has flexibility and an ordinance allows for variances to be used to accommodate existing conditions otherwise we all are gonna be non entrepreneurial because they're gonna be so hampered by the rules and regs then we don't want to do that also I have one question and I think John's gonna probably say they'd send the existing ordinance but only ask it anyway can we use right-of-way as part of our parking because I can tell you up and down Bryant Boulevard tech starts right away extends into those ten or more feet and we get that's part of

[2:20:23] our parking lot so when we go to calculate parking how do we look at that well that's sort of like sculpture Gardner property line or the curb you know I mean there's several years the current ordinance deals with on-site parking and so normally we would only count the parking on the side so if that parking lot has been has spilled over into the right of way we would normally not count that having said that if it's a pre-existing situation they're grandfathered anyway and so it really doesn't make a difference the way to get that counted would be through technically you can't use the public right of way without city council permission so the the way to do that is an encroachment agreement that comes to you all just like a downtown business that wants to put chairs out for seating in front of the restaurant they have to come to you all or to build an awning out into the right-of-way similarly a business can ask to allow parking into the right-of-way and you all can approve that if you all did approve that then we would count that as as parking for the side okay with that is there any more public comment no more public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of passing this parking off street parking standards say aye any opposed the motion is passed 5 to 1 item e is consider ratifying a resolution by the cosa DC board authorizing the board president or his designee to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the city of San Angelo relating to infrastructure improvements necessary for planning a 153.07291 project manager this item is a requirement

[2:22:44] basically it's providing financial security if you will for public improvements which would be required by any developer I was trying to record a subdivision plat in our case because we are we have a close relationship with the city we're able to do this with a memory and of understanding guaranteeing the that cosa DC will provide those improvements so it's basically a Memorandum of Understanding between the city and cosa DC saying that we will either provide those improvements or require as a condition of sale of any of the property that those improvements being be completely put in according to city standards again it's a part of part 1 of the Commission Planning Commission's condition of approval was prior to apply recreation a Memorandum of Understanding be approved by the City Council do I have questions for Bob no just go ahead Harry Bob my one question or kind of a edification for the people that are watching here today is what do we generally sell land for in the industrial park when we sell it up until now we've been working in phase one which has been in existence since 2004 we the appraised value has been 25,000 per acre for properties over five acres five acres above 29,000 per acre for less than five acres we have gotten a new appraisal 20 for 2018 and that appraisal would give us a little wider spread so between 20 and 30 thousand for large acreage tracts dependent on proximity to the highway system and also whether or not the Lots have been cleared

[2:24:46] similarly the smaller Lots they're now saying less than five acres that they would be between 30 and 40,000 per acre so it is a bonus those prices per acre inclusive of the infrastructure - assuming infrastructure is in place and the high end of that would be a lot that's maybe fronting or very close to the highway has been cleared already I guess the point I was trying to make for the citizens is this is the investment of four million dollars will certainly be paid back very very quickly if you've got 153 acres that you're going to that you could potentially sell yes and if if that were not the case if once we get bids on the actual construction and everything then obviously we would have to adjust the price per acre accordingly to cover those additional costs didn't we get a 1.2 million dollar grant for this how much was it 1.25 million so of the 4 million you reduced that by the 1 to 5 oh right yes ma'am this slide shows the phase 2 point 1 the deferred drainage was 1.6 billion dollars that was a cost that we deferred to be able to get a EP under their property in a timely manner and then the additional improvement infrastructure would be two and a half million 1.25 million of which comes from the economic development administration grant is there a second second by Lane public comment please with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye aye with none opposed motion passes we'll move into item F consider

[2:26:51] ratifying custody C approval regarding the purchase of a vacant tract of land being 180 plus acres out of Jacey Matthews abstract 807 one survey Oh 178 and being a parcel property located adjacent to the south right-of-way of FM 2105 approximately 1.5 miles west of the intersection of FM 2105 and highway 277 and authorizing the board president to negotiate and execute a contract for the purchase of the real estate as presented at $3,000 per acre plus related costs and to execute all related documents Bob Buren thank you this slide shows the the subject property being this it is as the mayor mentioned about a mile and a half from highway 277 which is here fronting on FM 2105 which is here the price per acre all right got man it's 180 acres plus or minus and that'll depend on the final survey that may go up a little bit or down a little bit the agreed purchase price is three thousand dollars per acre plus appropriate closing cost if you will other conditions of the sale mineral rights will be split 50/50 between the seller and cosa DC with a condition that there be no disturbance of the subject property if in the event of drilling or whatever and we do have a 90 day inspection period or feasibility period in which we'll be doing the phase one environmental report getting a survey done and a few other items the intended purpose of the property is for a potential commercial and/or industrial development do I have questions for Bob to approve a second

[2:28:57] second by Tommy any public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye none opposed motion passes six zero we will move on to public hearing a first reading of an ordinance amending appendix a fee schedule by deleting article a 3.0 one one bus fares and replacing it with article a 3.0 one one airport bags badge fees Tina good morning mayor council mr. Valenzuela this is the product this is the first agenda item which is a product of our annual fee review process in these first couple of slides are just kind of a reminder of why we do have charges for some of the services that we provide you'll recall that our property tax brings in about 46 percent of our general fund revenue sales tax at about 25 percent other taxes including franchise fees at about 10 percent and charges for service at 13 percent and so every year we want to review our fees and make sure that we're charging an appropriate cost so that we're not subsidizing the cost of the services that we provide through the property tax because the property tax was actually put in place to cover the cost of Public Safety which is 56 percent of our general fund budget and so we just kind of want to start out with that just kind of a brief reminder why we have to have charges for some of the services we provide so that we can continue to provide them Marren if I may as well we know that our state legislators every two years they come into session this year they've addressed two of our three top revenue generators which is property tax revenues and franchise fees are going to be affected by the end of this session we know that our franchise fees could be affected as much as half a million dollars it's a big hit on the city and more and more we have revenues that are roading off of our general funds because of these such actions surprisingly enough our our one of our big revenue generators is sales tax

[2:30:59] revenues of course the state benefits directly from the sales tax revenue so that's not being affected but again we do have property tax revenues and more than likely franchise fees will be affected so more so than ever it's important that we do address our our user fees and make sure that they're in line with what our cost is so with that thank you and with that we'll move into the agenda item that you just read which is the fees for the airport and these are this one's pretty straightforward the general aviation and federal enforcement badge the current fee is already $45 we're not making any changes to either of these fees we're just going to implement them into the ordinance at this point and the second one for airport is the security identification display area badge at $60 any questions on those again just putting them into the ordinance they're already the fees that are being charged out there and collected so okay I'm gonna ask this a lot today question mark is the following what are we trying to achieve because if we start off with saying we're not gonna change these fees and yet we look at the cost of service being $85 to 136 dollars and based off the previous conversation that we have potential losing half a million dollars and yet here's one where the cost of service is certainly greater than the proposed fee and the proposed fee is to stay with the existing fees so I just need some rationale for this let me tell you what's included in the cost of service for this one one is the actual background check we have to pay a fee for that two is staff time administering and the police officer out of the airport reviewing all those background check information and three is the actual materials for the cards themselves and so that's what we've used to calculate this cost of service and we're happy to discuss any other changes you'd like to make to the fee certainly I just again bring up if we're concerned about fees we're not changing this fee and yet we know I'm not covering the cost of service I'm not sure what we're

[2:33:03] doing here no other fees we've discussed was we're trying to get to so I thought I'd discuss it in the past we wanted to get to covering the cost of the service this doesn't help us doesn't move us in that direction on this one I'm with the mayor why are we not proposed a higher fee at this point it was just because we didn't have it in the ordinance at this point so we were addressing that but again like we're gonna change the autopsy together inevitably this will come back to make an adjustment to get us closer to our caution beam I know absolutely if we don't make that change today it would probably come back next we oughta just do it today somebody have a recommendation how many of these do we see Tina yeah 137 of the general aviation and 81 of the security sizeable amount so my recommendation is to raise the fee at the same time that we're putting this ordinance in and my guess is it ought to go from 45 to 60 and from 60 to 75 or 80 is my somebody else can weigh in on it there have different numbers I'm well and then I would say come if we've requested these fees come back to us either annually or every other year so I would say raise it today bring it back to us next year with moving us closer to closer to cost of covering cost of service the ambulance and yes yes around the number of 75 percent is that correct we do some here's the question mark and again I'm going to bring it up on almost every one of these I know based off of the information and some of the

[2:35:05] statistics were given is we probe numbers that say here's what a hundred percent of the cost is here's what seventy-five percent of it and how do we get to 75 in three years the problem is if you're only going to get to 75 and three years by the time you get to three years you're not at seventy-five so I'm not sure how we're approaching this but statistically or look at it and say that in the three year window you start off in year one let's say it's 99 dollars difference between fee this year versus three years you add thirty three dollars every year so that when you get to year three year and a hundred percent so you divide the difference between cost of service to proposed fee divided by three so in year one two and three you get to the hundred percent and that's just a thought I hate the fees I hate all of this but if we're having this conversation about money being disappearing issues with it he's become an important part we don't want to cover with other things I just think we need to have a strategy on is our goal to get to 100 percent in three years is our goal to get to 75 percent in three years what's our goal here if I may I know that in the past when when revenues or the fees weren't being taking a look at as closely as they are now years back these numbers fell way behind so now what we're looking at we're playing catch-up and the the thought in the past has been you know sticker shock we don't want to go all the way to 100% overnight we want to make an adjustment whether it's in a two three or four year phase-out that's what you want to do but again it's just a sticker deal but we do understand though that on our end we know what it costs you to provide the service and whenever we fall short of the cost to provide that service it has to be supplemented supplemented from somewhere and that's

[2:37:07] generally from our general fund and we know we have a lot of challenges to our general fund when it comes to infrastructure improvements and things that we need to do that are a priority for the City Council and for staff as well so we do want to get closer to that unfortunately in the past we have fallen way behind right now we're trying to make up for that without that sticker shock overnight 100% fee adjustments so we're just asking council to work with us to make those adjustments phasing it in and then get in to a point where we are at 100% Mary great so I just want to make sure that we're all in agreement are we trying to get to 75% are we trying to get to 100% and based off of that conversation makes a difference in terms of whether we down the road support the information or these fees being proposed here because we need a standard that we work from in a process that is consistent with all fees my guess is we need to just Harry I'm gonna support the mayor on this we need to get to a hundred percent of what our cost is we cannot continue these fees at this lesser cost and make every citizen out there be liable for that difference in cost coming out of the general fund we've got to do that and I don't care whether we get there in three years or four years but we've got to get to the spot where we're not looking fees every year because we're going to do this we're gonna spend an hour and a half or two hours today looking at fees and this is not all of them so let's get to a hundred percent and if we're gonna phase it in three years that's fine I'm comfortable with that I would rather move to sixty and seventy five or sixty and eighty dollars on these two so when we come back from second reading on this I'd like those fees to change well for example on the $45 one if you said the falling 45 to 60 this year 60 to 75 in year two seventy five to eighty five and years three then in your third year you're at your cost of service and so if you take sixty from

[2:39:10] a hundred and thirty six basically you're looking at $76 $76 divided by 3 is about $26 $27 so 60 plus 27 is 87 round that up to 90 the 90 plus 27 is another way that we could say that mayor that we get to one third of the way to a hundred percent each year for the next three years well I think three years makes more sense for everyone but I think we want that third year to be at our projection time projecting cost the sir is Mike yes what Tina Tina stated it correctly yes and I love that idea because it applies the whole fever review process as well that means we don't have to bring this feedback for three more years and you don't have to talk about it for three more years so oh I have a question that stability so at year three our cost will be more than it is today as we look at it so will you do something to it increase the cost of service every year and get to one third of whatever that cost is for the year well you could also stay on your fourth year you'd go back and reevaluate cost of service and then have a strategy before was so that there wouldn't be huge big jumps and saying that right now you're projecting three years out being a hundred percent on year three you're gonna have to look at your three through six which side I mean it's either way I would say teen whatever that works out - based on what you stated for the second reading put those numbers in there as whatever that cost the service needs to go to going forward and apply that I would say to all of these I would say this will be the new Tina dears key rule we're three years but do we want to get to the cost of service in today's you know the cost of service goes up every I mean there's an adjustment they maybe an annual basis that we take a look at that cost of

[2:41:13] service but as long as we're advancing to get to a hundred percent after the third year the cost of service may be eighty seven dollars for the bottom one about a third year but if we're making that adjustment as we go along well he hit 100% no matter what and it'll be a driving align with the cost of service in the third year just don't let us get behind the eight-ball on these just don't like just just get us where we need to be and don't let us get behind the eight-ball that being said then on the second reading we'll include yours one two and three and your background information and we'll ask for your approval to to approve that plan that would be correct and then we'll put language in there that says that will update the cost of service on an annual basis I think that would be a good standard to have yes if I could question yes what I heard was that the estimates would up be updated and we would move to an uncertain number in those out years my question is Theresa are we able to pass an ordinance today which moves us in the future to a number which will not be known until some future date that sort of uncertainty can we because we know what the number is going to be based on it's going to be a percentage and so even though we don't know the actual answer we know the calculation to get there so I think that is a legitimate and how will we ratify or authorize that action in the future if that number is not spelled out in what we pass this year one thing that we've had you know just mostly Julia and I have had a conversation about bringing forward and it's something we can discuss is whether we move this out of the Code of Ordinances and put it into a policy that's adopted by resolution that way we could bring it back in for a year on consent agenda just shows all of the fees that are being adopted for that year and it's one reading it wouldn't be multiple presentations like we do it now and it certainly wouldn't be two reading so that is an option to do that a little more effectively but still give the public notice and an opportunity to discuss what's being proposed for each current year is that too big a task to accomplish this year at some point oh no

[2:43:17] it takes two readings well I was thinking about finance and what they have to go because we're we're ready to get deep into budget real quick right so we need to put this issue to bed when would we bring the ordinances back to convert to a resolution based fee schedule we've done this on some other circumstances where there were policies that were adopted into the Code of Ordinances and really what happens is the first reading is to remove appendix a basically from the Code of Ordinances and then on second reading of the removal of appendix a we adopt the new policy that just shifts everything into a policy statement can we do that after we've through the budget season do that in the fall or yes I mean you can adopt fees underneath ordinances now and then we can do that after the budget season is over if that's easier it doesn't I mean either way it's just two readings of council sounds like no matter what the fee is we all have the agreeance of we're gonna start at 75% the initial year that's a year to bring it up to whatever 85% of the it's three equal parts that you're three we want to be at a hundred yeah it would basically but there are a couple of ways with the proposed fee always changing you don't know what that is going to be so you put a percentage to it so if you're - if cost of services from eighty four seventy three to ninety two dollars you already apply that percentage to that and you get a new number instead of doing further percent sayin your three is a hundred percent right we have seven these schedules about to come up and if we just we could get through all of those if we set the same standard

[2:45:18] well motion yeah but there are couple in here that we need to go through because they're issues here so we can't do it across the board for example on the development services planning the administrator the eligible amendment fee I'm confused on this current fees 195 the proposed fee is 95 the cost of service is 120 we stick with the airport for now please well but we're we can't because we've opened up the conversation to address all fees we've already done that but on the agenda we got to do this one at a time is that what we're saying unless we read the captions for all of them or we went into without review okay so in this case I'm confused about what this is administrative leap eligible amendment fee the current fees 195 the proposed fee is 95 so it's going down do we need to read more we're just gonna do G this is going to do just gonna do the 1 now and then and if you want to read all those other ones we'll take them I have a motion on the airport badge fees a second okay a public comment we're doing a motion to the proposed fee or to the 60 81 the proposed of three steps every way there each year and a hundred percent by year three yes sir yes ma'am that's my second okay so that is the motion and ii have opened up for public comment there was no public comment so we'll take a vote all in favor say aye motion passes 6-0 do you want to all of them and open them all up at the same time to do something very similar well I think yeah we can just in case there's particular questions and issues cuz I certainly have some on several of these so I will pull back myself yes ma'am I underst

[2:47:19] I think what's being said would it be maybe as efficient to read one at a time open it up look at it see if it would be the same scenario is the one we just approved on the badges vote on that one and then move through each of them rather than kind of jump around I don't really care what I think I'm asking for is what Teresa or Julia says we need to do if we have to do each individual one since there are all agenda items or whether we can have a general because I've got questions so it might be easier to do one move to the next otherwise confused item age public hearing the first reading of an ordinance sorry I'm yeah item 8 public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amending appendix a fee schedule by many an article a 6-0 five a park facility and activity fees for youth leagues and tournaments so Teresa on this one okay this one is an actual new fee we didn't previously have use volleyball ease we have other you sleaze the feed that's being proposed for this is right in line with those other youth leagues and so I mean that's pretty straightforward the proposed fee is $300 and if they want to include jerseys it would be $350 per team okay so right now it's a zero that's because we don't offer this service currently it would be a new service to offer a youth volleyball league and we're gonna get in the business of creating jerseys for them I asked mr. Casey to come up and I think that should be their responsibility more than us getting in the business of making t-shirts we're a city we shouldn't be in the jersey business we don't we don't make them and bring Casey recreation manager we don't make the jerseys we just order them for

[2:49:20] them if they would choose for us to do so but a lot of teams to go out and get their own because they spend a lot of money on their uniforms that's something we already offer for other leagues absolutely yes so your were saying we don't do it now we're gonna open up the door to do it we do it for lots of our different other youth leagues but what we don't we don't make them we go yes and we get them you don't we turn just don't offer this particular sport right so we're offering a new sport we're offering them the same thing we do for other leagues so we get and some kind of good discount for doing it for free or ordering the t-shirts I'm just wondering why the league's don't take care of it all I guess I'm with the mayor okay all right we run the league but most of the jerseys cost us around $8 for average per Jersey so if your jerseys are 800 there are $8 what's the 350 I mean I'm getting six there six on a team so we charge $300 if they're gonna get their own jerseys 350 is what we're requesting too for us to go and purchase your jerseys and then you pay us the 350 and we'll give you the jerseys cost em cost yes sir okay just seemed to be simpler for us not to be involved in the making of I mean the ordering of these jerseys because what happens if I'm a size small and they come in but I mean I'm a size medium but I order them and they're big and so I really need a size small what do we do with those jerseys then I think what brent is saying is that we we already ordered shirts for all of our other leagues and so this would just be an additional league that we would order jerseys for in addition the city realizes some cost savings because we have a relationship with a t-shirt maker I guess and so that we're allowed to pass that savings on to these youths

[2:51:22] that are wanting to play volleyball and we've just been doing this in the past so it's nothing new we already offer all the other ones we're just doing it now just asking you for you see volleyball is all you're asking for it comes yeah go ahead and with the jerseys some of the teams go to San Antonio they go to Dallas they travel they play in big tournaments so some of them are just recreational leagues just getting a team started may have never played before so they don't care about the jersey go get me a t-shirt for five to eight bucks I'll be happy with that phone number on my name and I'm I'm tickled pink the other ones want to look good because they're going and playing in larger numbers they have travel teams and everything else so it's just we're asking to get the league started which has been requested of us so that's was just what we're trying to do so then it goes back to our conversation before if it costs us 357 is that what we're gonna ask since we're having this conversation it goes back to cost of service does it cover your entire cost of service Brent this is a precedent bear I mean and I think if we have a new service that's kicking in then we should look at the cost of services say this is what it is and this is what we should be charging and and make sure that we understand moving forward that that's what our goal is to get 200% of service that we provided is the does include the jerseys so the 357 is pretty close in line one two three fiftieth make it three fifty eight or whatever you're saying there's there's six people on the team and there's eight dollars per shirt forty eight dollars so forty eight dollars so it covers the cost that's not of the shirt itself we're just looking at the numbers in front of us and it says cost of service is three fifty seven fifty eight we've just had the conversation that we want to be a hundred percent of the fee so I'm just asking for input we've got two numbers on the proposed fees three and 350 is the cost of service the 357 to the 300 350 would go

[2:53:27] to the 350 of service and 350 758 compares with the 350 including jerseys and including jerseys so you would just move that cost your jerseys up to what 358 or 360 whatever it is right bucks there's no movement at 360 yes ma'am if you'd like yeah okay so I make sense we would be at 360 on 60 okay for cost of service is this one on its owners or more with this one there are more recreation fees but this is that's it for this percentage I have a motion to approve this one as a fee of 360 a second any public comment no public comment will we have a public comment public comment Steve Hampton all of these should be just at the cost and rounding up I agree with that thank you thank you so take a vote the cost of service is going to be 360 all in favor say aye I've known opposed motion passes 6 0 okay this next fee is for the recreation adaptive league and that is for children with special needs the current fee is $20 and the proposed fee is $30 the reason for the request for this change in the fee is that some of our links for adaptive leagues are currently charging 30 some are turning 20 and so this one is more to keep it consistent across the board for each of the sports that we offer for adaptive leagues well this then brings up one more time the question mark of if we're going to be at a hundred percent in three years is this too big of a jump on this particularly one to go from 30 to the 3-year hundred percent so we need third and third and third this one I think that we've intentionally kept the proposed fee below the cost of service because of the curve the impact that families already feel from having a

[2:55:30] child with special needs and so I think the intention wants to keep it a little bit lower on this one so the question mark is with that conversation keeping it lower but at what point do you or do you not start addressing the difference are there exceptions what we're saying building [Music] 80% seventy five eighty percent of the cost over three years I think there has to be some formula yeah I think there has to be some we'll share this but my suggestion would be to get to 75% of the cost minimum over three years so I don't have my counting that calculation real quick for us to see what it would put the proposed fee up to 82 bucks roughly 80 bucks billion that's a pretty big job I knew from 80 the is the 80 the third year or 80 the first year who has the calculators over 25% that the third year would be 96 53 good morning again I'd like to just say that if you're gonna go up that much one this one there's gonna be a lot of people coming in asking us to either find them a sponsor to pay for that or to come up with some type of a scholarship type of thing there are different organizations in the city that do that for individuals we at the Recreation Department do not as a city but uh that will be something that is asked a lot if you jump up on this one just just wanted to put that up rent I see the financial impact 850 does that mean that by going up $10 you have about 85 event registration events that would be affected yes currently we have four

[2:57:34] different leagues and actually a couple of them are already at 30 or do we just wanted to get them the same across the board if you spread that across that's about 20 people affected in four different leagues yes 21 what would you like to say I would like to see you just leaving at 30 across the board for all adaptive leagues and also put in there and for that's for any adaptive league because we would we would like to adjust the adaptive leagues currently we have volleyball soccer baseball and basketball but if they come to us and say he would like to do this when we tried flat football in the past they didn't care for that one so we won't do that one again but we would like to be able to give them what they want because the thing that they adapted people have is Special Olympics and that's like a one time a year thing as my understanding I'm not involved with Special Olympics anymore and never have been here in Santangelo but that was a reason that they adaptively got started is because they came to say hey what about us our kids have nothing to do give us something to do so we did and they love it if you haven't seen the adaptive league programs going on come out because it hits you right there I would like to make a motion that we approve this one has been recommended second with the motion and a second is a public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye no in opposed that passes 6-0 this next this next one has to do with summer track meet events or athletic leagues and tournaments special events and tournaments these are proposed the main change with these are going from a flat rate to a fee range and that allows flexibility for the recreation manager to bring in different types of events and different sizes of events and so if you have questions about what would be charged a $15 fee versus a $5 fee I'm sure that Brent could answer that for you I think we should have explanation

[2:59:37] so he could just he thought he's our man with all the knowledge so he can explain it to us currently in a set of five dollars so what we're trying to do is give kids an opportunity for the summer track for example we were this year we're having our track we know June the 15th and they're allowed to enter as many things as they would like but we're leaving it the $5 so we'd like to be able to increase that in the future for our track meets up to okay we're going to turn to $5 for event or whatever but our goal is to get people give the kids the opportunity to try different things so if they've always been a hundred meter runner and they've never done the long jump then the is there opportunity their parents can sign up for the long jump if they can get their coach to agree to an O our coach wouldn't agree to it if the kids haven't practiced it but if they want to do that especially the younger kids to see what they want to do for the rest of the summer and continue to work on those things and that's that's the ideal so it's more time for our staff the more events that they enter so that's what we're looking for with the Trac program is just to be able to increase it because right now it's $5 for all the events that they enter well you know one of the things we talked about on the other on these other is its cost of service so what we don't have here is information relative to okay what is this financially as far as for the tournament is gonna be hard to predict because it varies so much from time to time miss Britt said this one does take a lot of the time of the staff they view it more as a larger program and of course it has the impact on the community but we don't have that exact number on this I think we kind of need to understand it a little further I don't know if these are good numbers or bad numbers what the numbers are each of the participants are paying an $80 fee to participate in our summer Trac program and then this is just an additional fee for the track meet which we have at least one here every year on

[3:01:39] the Trac program the $80 fee is that a fee were reviewing today or not that one's not on this list okay so that may be one that we want to revisit as far as the cost of service based when we actually review that program itself well so I guess we can't make a decision on this if we don't know if we're gonna get to cost-of-service or not that's the information back at the the next meeting which has the track program as a whole which is the $80 fee and then this coupled and with that and show you where it falls since this is just a piece yeah yeah that'd be great is that for the next three things listed there as well they don't have cost of service / yes that would be great with that then would you like to approve this on first reading and make the change on second reading before the full presentation just know how to bring back two more times yes right okay that's not a problem an item I public hearing first reading of an ordinance amending appendix a fee schedule by amending article a 6-0 5c Nature Center fees for memberships and special event fees the first one for Nature Center is the memberships the current fee for an individual's $15.00 for a family membership is $25 we're proposing to increase those fees to 25 and $50 now yeah because the issue is family memberships so a family member of four and more or eight and more is all the same fee a family of four and then all right now it's a family membership

[3:03:46] for a family of four and if you have over four then it's another $25 so it's basically like purchasing two family memberships what if there's a family of five because that wouldn't make sense to go from 25 to 50 for just one more member family members it's just like we're purchasing the family membership plus that's extra 25 so for a family membership for a family of five with the proposed fee you'd pay the $50 for the first for any additional member would be $25 which is the individual for the proposed to be here 15 so the proposed fee as the individual goes up to 25 and family goes to 50 50 is for a family of four and any more than that it would be you'd pay the individual drives yes ma'am exactly and that then says the cost of service a 25 would be relative to 38 and 50 to 55 yes ma'am so we would we can get that this this is not huge this is not a huge jump we can get there right we can get there you know a year in a year two years two years at the most so because you certainly aren't going to in the others if you wanted to round up then you could change those to you know is this this is complicated we're doing two years in some three years would you prefer would you prefer just two three years at this point it helps to be consistent because when you start looking at remember there you go which one's the room back you we can vote to you know accept the new proposed fee on this with the idea that in three years we would meet the cost of

[3:05:49] service so okay so then can I have a motion on that no moved okay in a second okay all in any public comment yes mayor Steve Hampton I don't understand the hesitancy why does the the city the council have to be the big heart on all these things especially with the sports they talked about scholarships and people can they had let them be the big heart and write it off on their income tax why does the city always have to do that I I don't understand we have you address in the nature fees right now or though you go into the pocket about nature fees also yes well what I guess don't we do these are good to cost the service and just and round it off at the nearest dollar you don't have to even go up to the to the tens you can stay right on there and that way we don't have to worry about the three years at all and if we just make an ordinance it always says keep it at the cost of service rounded up to the nearest dollar thank you thank you for that comment I'm Gary you know I just just from my clarification I thought the reason we weren't making the total jump on these right now was because we got so far behind in the past that we didn't keep up with our fees and rather than produce a lot of sticker shock for our citizens that we were going to do it incrementally that's correct is that okay you know it would be a real sticker shock because I remember the presentation that chief Dunn made us last year if we went from what we were charging now to the full cost of it it would not be feasible so I just wanted to make sure I still had that understanding that we were playing catch-up because we didn't keep up

[3:07:53] before that's correct okay thank you all right so the motion and the second on this and the public comment has been had so the motion is to accept these proposed fees as presented and use the same three year tier to get to the hundred percent all in favor say aye none opposed motion passes 7-0 birthday parties the current fee is $65 we're proposing a fee of $75 cost of service seventy six dollars I would say the cost of service seventy six a proposed face should be $80 I mean we're so close to it there's no reason to move in a second second any public comment with no public comment we will approve the proposed C being moved to $80 may I go back to that they don't have a question on these birthday parties so the fee is based off of how many people or is there because I think that's the one thing we need to talk through on this is is it 80 now going to be $80 for a hundred people or is it $80 for six people or what is it because again if it's the same fee regards to the size of the group that doesn't make sense it was or set it up to twelve people a dollar for each additional child up to age fifteen okay so if you take I'm just going to use 75 if she divides 75 by 15 what is that per person it's 5 bucks so the question mark is once you go over 12 all of a sudden the cost of service is only $1 per person and I would say it would make more sense to not be $1 but

[3:09:58] maybe 250 or 50% of the per person rate but if the cost of service is 76 19 is that regardless of 12 or 20 question your staffing levels and so forth are basically the same yes no matter how many people up to 12 and then what happens if you go to 20 people went to 20 people and they would charge the dollar extra per person and we would ask for volunteers to come in and assist us with the party but normally only like one extra volunteer so it wouldn't be a paid staff it's normally the nature center has tons of volunteers so only they would be the one that came in with our staff and of course the size of our parties can only get so big because the bill Campbell what's the maximum capacity for these parties include the yard the parking lot every thing else where we put other things for special events but the the building is 80 people 80 people is basically we don't see them that large yes so we know we've already proved it so moving forward is something you could bring us to bring back on second reading if you like Brent and Tina to look at that well I think there's a reason to say that incremental over the 12 maybe it shouldn't be a dollar but maybe it should be a little more when they met Brent's Koster still fixed if I heard him correctly is that accurate they get the volunteers if they get them sounds like they don't have any trouble getting volunteers so I don't I don't think they're any snacks or anything else that are given out they bring their own they bring their own food so there's no additional thing so at this point just leave it as is good leave it as it is there's no reason to do that okay next up is a public hearing the first reading of an ordinance amending appendix a fee schedule by amending article a 11.000 fire and rescue service

[3:12:01] fees we don't recall last year we brought these ambulance fire and rescue fees to you and we were so far away from the actual cost of service that you asked us to continue to bring it back annually until we do get to that 100% of cost of service this is the second year last year we went to 70% of the cost of service and this year we're proposing to go to 80% of the cost of service on these fees so the first one we have is the advanced life support type one emergency their current fee is $979 the 80% cost of service is 1216 dollars the financial impact would be just under one hundred and fifty thousand dollars so a current fees a thousand eighty percent would be twelve sixteen ninety all right so if we take the let's say nine hundred and eighty - do the normal thing that we said and this is going to get us there and within within three yea within three years we're showing you the 80 90 and 100% o cost of service you can do the same thing to direct us to go to the hundred percent of service cost meters over these three yeah it makes any - yeah okay with that do I have a motion on that so we've second any public comment there's no public comment we will vote all in favor say I would not oppose motion passes six zero the second fire fee that we have is advanced life support support type to emergency current fee is one thousand four hundred sixteen dollars the financial impact would be four thousand dollars if we went to 80% of the cost of service at one thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars we want to use the same standard here we want to use the same standard so do I have a motion for that Tom moves who seconds second by Tommy or lane or double double second and any public comment no public comment we'll take a

[3:14:04] vote all in favor say aye unknown opposed motion passes six zero and I would assume the same thing on this one do I have the motion I wouldn't Billie moves Lane seconds all in public comment take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes 6 0 so the mileage fee is a per patient mile fee the current fee is $12 the cost of services 1391 and we're proposing a fee of 1375 move it to 14 second a motion bite tom second by harry public comment no public comment motion to take a vote all in favor all right then opposed motion passes 7 six-zero alright what we're gonna do right now wait same story okay what we're gonna do right now is we're going to take a break and we're gonna go an executive session and have lunch so our executive and then we'll finish the fees when we return so our closed session executive session or the provision of government code title five open government ethics subtitle a open government chapter five five one open meeting subchapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings be open under the following sections a section five five 1.07 to to deliberate the purchase exchange lease or value of real property of deliberation or an open meeting would have detrimental effect on the position of the governmental body negotiations with a third person regarding one the Ford ranch and two property commonly known as a city farm we will be an hour and fifteen minutes

[3:16:06] so we will return at 12:25 we're going to move on falling closed session to item 10 oh yeah follow up an administrative issues so a we will consider items discussed in closed session Tommy yes ma'am I'd like to make a motion that we authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute a lease agreement with recurrent energy for up to three hundred forty two acres located along highway 67 for the development of a solar farm contingent on recurrent negotiating access to the Red Creek substation within 180 days thank you and now we will we have a second oh sorry and there's our public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye nine opposed motion passes six zero now before we move on to administrative issues we'll go back to the regular agenda and I believe we were finished with item aye so we're ready to go in to refinish J and J so we're ready to do K so public hearing the first reading of an ordinance amending appendix a fee schedule by amending article a 15.00 3h other rental fees for civic events facility use fee and tina your on yes ma'am again tina dear c director of finance is a fee that we charge we the intent the intention for this fee is to retain that revenue in order to maintain and keep up our buildings and facilities so the current fee right now is a range it ranges from 50 cents to a dollar fifty per ticket and we're proposing a two dollar fee per ticket for tickets over five dollars and four tickets under $5 $5 or less would be 50 cents per ticket the cost of service on this one

[3:18:09] was pretty difficult to calculate and the way we did it was to calculate the number of tickets that were sold last year and basically divided the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities by that number of tickets and so that's where we came to the four dollars and seventy eight cents which clearly says that this fee is not intended to cover all costs that 478 would cover all costs this fee just assists in providing monies to operate what takes care of the rest of the cost of service they have other revenue streams for example hotel occupancy tax and of course revenues from their facility the facilities concessions rentals merchandise yeah so with this one I want to point out that this is very close in line with what other cities are charging and Lubbock is $30 fee a merlot has a $2 fee Midland has a $3 fee which tow Falls a $3 fee and the for a fee like this from what I'm told by said we just want to be able to keep it competitive so that we can draw more vendors to our market this is also consistent with what we're charging for the auditorium that's correct per our agreement with the auditorium they are charging a $2 facility may fee that they retain for maintenance of the auditorium and this fee for these tickets goes towards what well the intended purpose is to upkeep and maintain our existing facilities but it doesn't cover the entire cost to maintain them so you use other sources to do that it's a supplement yes and if we did try to cover the cost of service it would it would make the ticket prices out of range for ability to provide yes ma'am entertainment all right do I have a motion Harry moved second second five Billy public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye

[3:20:14] with none opposed that motion passes six zero will move into item L public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amending appendix a fee schedule by many an article a 9.000 planning related fees proposing a slight decrease in this planning amendment that's an administrative level which means that John can approve it sorry I'm just getting to my notes here they only require John's approval and so the current fee is $195 the proposed fee is $95 cost of service at almost 130 dollars and it would have a financial impact of less revenue of 1,000 and the amount of $1,000 I think my first question is why would we would not reduce it to the cost of service since they're already used to paying the 195 why wouldn't we just take it down to the 130 I think part of the issue with these fees related to downtown and River corridor development which is what many of these apply to we were concerned about making sure the fee was low enough so as not to discourage people from seeking development in those areas since this is a fee that if you're in other parts of the city you don't have to comply with what does it do well this is actually it's sort of a new fee because right now if you get say a river corridor approval for a remodeling of the facade of a downtown building and then later say six months later you change what you want to do and come back to amend that right now we don't have an amendment fee we so you just get charged the same fee as if it's a new request but if you're just asking

[3:22:17] to change something about some development that's already been approved that takes less of our time and it's a simpler review so that's why number one while we created a separate amendment fee but that's also why we wanted it to be a reduced fee pretty complicated that explanation doesn't exactly clear the muddy water so again the question mark we still have a cost of service as one hundred and twenty nine eighty three and we have an objective today to get to a hundred percent so whether we choose to simply do this one and meet that cost of service right now because it still would be less than the current fee or whether we do the 95 and then get to the 130 in our three-year span so somebody weigh in on that not a whole lot I mean you can kind of back into that number from the financial impact it's this isn't a thing that we see a whole lot compared to some of the other fees I will say and this is kind of relevant what we'll talk about with the building fees as we looked at all of those many of our building fees are much lower than the hundred percent cost recovery so as we looked at them our goal was roughly to get to 75 percent we thought jumping all the way to a hundred percent would be too much to take on even over a three year period and that's something we can get to on the next item but that's part of the reason that this isn't the full cost of service on this one I don't think it's a big deal if we jump straight to the cost of service like you said it's it's already it's still coming down from what they're paying today motion in a second and public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor

[3:24:18] say aye with none opposed motion passes 6 0 X planning fee is planning design and historic review administrative Lea eligible current fee of one hundred ninety five dollars proposed fee of $50 cost of service $90 financial impact less revenue $1,450 and it would seem since we're coming down that we ought to get to the cost of service of $90 and let me just add one thing on this this is a new fee and what's not shown on here why is it current fee if it's a new fee well I'm sorry it's right now what this doesn't say what's in your background is this is what we call the like-for-like fee so if you're if you're simply replacing say doors and windows with doors and windows that are exactly the same or similar material this was an attempt based on if you recall a few a few months ago we talked about the new standards for river corridor downtown and cultural district one of the concerns raised by citizens was if I'm just replacing something just like what's already there I should have a lower fee and so this is creating basically a new fee right now they have to pay the full 195 this was a way to give a lesser cost if you're just simply replacing like-for-like and I would agree with that but relative to our conversation once again it's it's we're proposing something lower than the current fee costs of services $90 so I think the recommendation should be to stick to the $90 cost of service and leave it at that it's like for like why is there even a fee well it's probably have to review their information to verify that it is like what they're proposing is like for like and it's it's not changing the materials or colors or that sort of thing doesn't take the warning long as the full review I mean this literally may be you know an hour

[3:26:21] to work for somebody but the staff time for that it's a fairly small cost but just somebody spending an hour to reviewing it it's a front door cuz someone busted it in if I owned a building down there and I need it like that well not if they broke into your building you wouldn't but if you're remodeling a building is what they're talking about somebody broke into your building you're not gonna go to the city hall to ask you if you come if they damage it enough to where you have to replace the entire door you don't have to go to permits to do that if it's on your building it's damaged regards to have to replace the frame you're just gonna do that you're gonna put the same door back up the level of complexity to what they're doing and also whether it's got local historic zoning on it or all those things there's several different things these are what I would assume primarily on redesign reworking redoing a building that's not a completed building this is in the restoration okay this is just your door broke down okay not just regular main there rightly be for a historic building in downtown for example I have a comment I think on the current fee it seems like the current fee to begin with was too much if you're saying it only takes an hour hour and a half couple of hours 195 charging someone for that it's way too much to begin with so is our cost of service really 8990 original fee is not based on on this work the original fee was based on them going for a full review full commission so this is a total new fee that takes into account that it only takes that smaller amount of time versus the 195 which is based on a full-fledged case there wasn't an option for so we you're playing somebody $89.90 an hour we also taken to consideration it's not just salaries it's it's salaries bills

[3:28:26] own salaries plus benefits for John staff they spend time on reviewing that and then of course some of John's time to review his staffs work as well and in I don't remember if this one has the mileage if they have to drive and look at the site so there's some of that in crime sorry if you're doing like for like the Director of Planning has to say that the staff member can't tell like like something like this typically and I don't know if we included my time at all on this one but it often times I wouldn't see one like this but again just just the the front desk person who processes the application may spend fifteen minutes on it and then the planner that reviews it would spend some time maybe even having to go out to the site and take some pictures I mean we get to $89 fairly quickly I will add one more thing some of this is related to changes that we've proposed for the ordinance that haven't gone into effect yet you may recall that you all tabled those changes to the river corridor in downtown standards that would have created more reviews and one of the concerns that you all asked us to look at was creating this new lower fee before you felt comfortable implementing those new rules if if more things were going to be reviewed you all wanted this lower fee and so that was this is in response to that and so once if we have this fee then we'll feel more comfortable bringing back that ordinance change to you at a future meeting why go ahead no I was just gonna close out to say certainly you're the expert on that and Tina financial from a financial standpoint so I will accept the cost of service being eighty nine ninety it just seems really high to me I think sometimes billy on all of these I mean if we go back and start questioning how do we come up with eighty nine ninety based off of this and then we got to go to every single one of them

[3:30:27] how did you come up with the cost for each of these because that same analysis would have to apply to all of these fees and it gets difficult when you start doing it that way was just so straightforward anyway the current fee being 195 I would make a motion that we the proposed fee at the cost of service $90 I make that motion I thought well this is means everybody's in agreement so maybe we don't need to take a vote because it sounds like everybody already voted but we'll check to go okay all in favor say aye okay no nays motion passes okay and this is your final fee for planning it's a change of zone classification first sign fee the current fee is $37.50 with a twenty five dollar rebate or refund and we're proposing to go to a fee of $15 the cost of service is twenty one dollars and eighty four cents for the financial impact of $62.50 talk about the rebate what's that this is one we're trying to simplify what we used to use if you remember were those big heavy metal signs like a realtor son like a for sale sign in front of a house and so what we would do is charge the applicant the full thirty seven fifty but then once if when when they brought back the sign so that we wouldn't have the cost of having to buy these all the time if they brought it back we would give them twenty five dollars back it was a it was a way to help ensure that we got our signs back now we've shifted to using those little like plastic corrugated signs that are we reuse them as much as possible but if we lose them they're not

[3:32:28] as expensive to purchase and so we're gonna get rid of the rebate altogether and just have a flat fee again we proposed 15 just trying to drop that fee I'd be fine with the cost of service on that one as well but it's it's mainly to simplify and get rid of that rebate you could stick in with our standard of trying to meet cost of service then he's making the motion yeah Harry did and Elaine seconded it so the cost of service is twenty dollars twenty to twenty two dollars cost of service will be twenty two dollars that's a motion and a second for twenty two dollars going twice twenty-two dollars any public comment okay okay so moving on okay so we're gonna vote now all in favor I see we're not used to hanging out this long it's getting a little silly so they're not opposed tell me 10 okay Tina oh wait I have to get my see that sorry okay we're now gonna have public hearing the first reading of an ordinance amending the appendix a fee schedule by minene article a 9.000 planning related fees read item M okay M public hearing the first reading of an

[3:34:37] ordinance amending apex appendix a fee schedule by many article a 2.000 building and construction related fees for permits and inspections I believe we have a total of 20 to 24 I can't remember exactly do you want to go through these each one by one or do you want to go through them quickly and determine if we want to go with the concept that we've been using with others or what's your I think we need to go through each of them because I think people might have different questions on different elements of it but okay obviously we're going to try to stick with the same mentality sure okay so the first one is demolition of accessory structure the current fee is $15 the proposed fee is $30 and the cost of service is $90 apparently we only have about one of these per year but the financial impact is this with those okay go ahead if I could add one thing this is kind of related to all of these fees as you'll see with the number of these we're very much lower the $15 is a whole lot lower than the cost of service so as we looked at these our goal was to get to 75% point over three years and as you noticed in your packet we provided a letter from the home builders we also presented this to the development task force and that's what we proposed to them and so I just say that as a caution if if you're looking at going 200 percent that's not what we've presented throughout our public process over three years but but over three years getting to that 75 percent point not all the way to a hundred and so I know Home Builders Association representative is here to speak but what they've endorsed as an organization was getting to 75 percent over three years so who said that we need that I mean I think that concern we would all have up here is how do we settle on 75% or 50% or 100% or again the way we looked at it was we were so

[3:36:42] low today am i reading am I reading this incorrectly then if I look at the chart that we were just given you have 100 percent cost of service and I see your three over here is right at the 100% mark right that's at seven years or so so in your background sixty-two so in your background packets you had information that got you to your one two and three at seventy five percent and what julia has just handed out to you is getting to 100 percent versus a seventy-five percent over a three year period what you direct me to do but as John just said he has discussed the concept and what he's presented to the public up to now was getting to the seventy-five percent mark over a three-year period but you certainly have the authority to make that change to get to a hundred percent that's what you choose we were presented this is just just an attempt to be responsive to what we're hearing you say today yes but we didn't realize we just created this while you were an executive session so that you can see what the 100 percent looked like versus the 75 percent that you saw before thank you I would simply say that we probably should make sure that we if we've moved we've talked all afternoon about getting to a hundred percent in three years on most of these these are not quite there I would say move them a couple more dollars and get to a hundred percent in year three most of these that's not a big jump you know for example this first one we're proposing 30 and getting to 100 would take you to 40 instead of 30 so it just depends on you know how big the initial charge was to what that well I think there's you know as a council

[3:38:44] were little concerning that there was work and effort put in to working with the Home Builders Association I'm getting agreement and support for certain numbers of which council wasn't involved in those conversations and so now we're being presented with what you guys have negotiated and it makes us look like it's not a good again I think that the reasoning went for that was as John said we were so far behind on the car and the cost of service versus the current fee that the the idea was to slowly more slowly get to that one percent mark and for the time being to get to seventy-five percent but again your you have the Prague ative to make a change if you want us to present something differently this made this feat these fees schedule does not line up with what you've got there anyway goes fee on this one is $40 repair what you're seeing up on my on the screen is not what we see here okay this screen is at 75 getting to the 75% of cost of service and I had my staff during your lunch break work up what it looked like at a hundred percent because I was hearing that from you all morning that you're trying to get to the hundred percent I wanted you to see what that looks like versus the 75 percent well I will say this as well as far as please don't beat me up or this but on a good-faith effort we did talk about seventy-five percent by the third year I mean by fourth year who could be at 100 percent if that's what the City Council wants to look at because that was what was discussed John with those developers the community and the individuals you met with so that may be an exception at this point to get to the seventy-five percent by year three and then by year four to one hundred percent not but again the cautious of what we do to work with groups if in fact it's gonna come back to City Council with the recommend get showing us a hundred percent I don't think we

[3:40:46] want to put anybody in a bad situation saying we worked with the Home Builders Association for these agreements you were very involved in it on the other hand it's pretty heavy-handed relative to now coming before council and saying we've already negotiated this here it is do you approve it it's uncomfortable so we've done correct probably all of that next to the last and third from the bottom word does that actually go down discussed a real challenge with the fees is when they just don't move year after year after year so getting to a hundred over four years as is is certainly less difficulty than we've experienced the last four years I think what I understood and I could be totally wrong but I'm sure I'm not and that is is that the last time these fees were established the homebuilders then had said but you need to take these on an annual basis and incrementally increase them so we don't get in the hole again and that hasn't been done and so we just fell further behind although when the homebuilders said here's a check we're gonna make you whole again make you black ink now what you need you to do is be increasing these on an annual basis so we don't end up in trouble again and here we are and I'll say that this is about one third of the fees that we have with permits and so that was our that's why we proposed a three-year cycle of getting to that 75% mark was that we plan to bring another third next year and the remaining third that following year and try to get those on a cycle where we are reviewing them annually and that we're updating them more regularly I think it's hard to objector what they've already negotiated I think that's well and we're talking about getting there and for you to 100% in four years so as long as that's

[3:42:49] understood by us as well as staff not three but four then to me I'm with Tom I think the question mark is is if if we get to 75 now does that make too big of a jump from 75 to a hundred on the fourth year or should there be I know we would so if the homebuilt sounds like there's an agreement so with that do I have a motion like a motion to go as written a second any public comment may I just want to make sure that we're clear on this you're saying there's written and directed by staff we're talking about ace up to 75% by year three and then year four we can bring it back up to year three but the goal is to get it up to 100% but that's what you're saying right Tom as far as the get ended up to 75% by year three year three as we have just and approved and agreed with the homebuilders and that's I guess split up evenly over the three years basically to get us at that point rounding up one yes Oliver with the Home Builders Association and we just want to say thank you to Charlie and Aaron and John and their whole team because we really appreciate the effort that they have made to involve us and work with us we all realize that we all have a common goal we want to make the city prosperous and one side note I would add our builders provide tax base and so the more homes they're building the more tax base that continues on indefinitely so that is one thing I know it is does kind of sound like well we're asking for the 75% but housing is a huge issue right now especially affordable housing and it's something that we are fighting not only locally you know but at the state and the national level as well and so we do we appreciate the effort tremendously

[3:44:52] we appreciate the effort because everyone here has the same goal I believe it's to keep housing affordable and you know there's a statistic that for every thousand dollars that a house home increases that knocks 22,000 Texans out of the market and it's a pretty staggering statistic and so the cost really does make a difference but we appreciate you guys working with us and we look forward to continuing working with you all in the future thank you Thank You Kristen and unquestionably we realize that every time we raise fees that impacts to what the value of the home is which reduces a number of people but I also think sometimes you can go through area by area and find ways to pick it up in areas not to and this just did it 100 percent over so it is what it is so with that did we take a vote can i clarify one thing on that motion are we making a motion to approve the entire list of permit fees right now yes we are presented okay because we understand they were negotiated that way okay so remind me did we go so we're and we had public comment just since we're gonna take a vote all in favor say aye I will go to item in and item in so item in as to consider appointment of mayor pro-tem

[3:46:56] and appointment of City Council members to boards and commissions and Julia you're making the presentation yes just with the ending of the current terms for council members Hebert Thomas and Carter there did open some positions on various boards and some of those have n dates set by outside entities so for instance the concho river water master advisory committee they've already set their own end date so my recommendation would be if somebody's on a board with an outside term end date that perhaps we leave them there and but we do need to take a look at some of the other boards audit committee concho Valley Council of Governments General Assembly the investment Oversight Committee mayor pro-tem obviously mhm our nominating committee and then the Murphy performance hall and then we do need to discuss if we do want to reinstitute the port's to planes back up that was initiated in 2016 and then in 2017 we just left it as one appointment so I'd like to just start with the audit committee well the question is on the term end date says date of appointment was July 18 2017 is it a four-year term two-year term ten-year term these are just for the appointment so since Harry's original and appointment to Council has ended then this would be for a new term and we keep everything as is unless there's an objection we could do that I'll start off kind of take it all at once I would and I'd like to first say I was appointed mayor pro-tem two years ago thoroughly enjoyed it and thank you all as council for letting me to have that opportunity I know there's other people that would like

[3:48:58] opportunity to do the same and have their turn on it so at that point for mayor pro-tem I would like to nominate Harry Thomas for mayor pro-tem and I would make the motion to keep all boards and nominations as is unless objected I will second that it's one of the most classy things I've ever seen done without any public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in trying to say something about the backup if you guys want to keep that or reinstitute it then backup for the poorest item back up to ports Des Plaines and and you discussed that in 2016 and it's not really a recognized position by ports to planes but in 2016 it was important to the council that there be a backup that was officially named so I don't know if that's important to this current council or not I can make that and if no objection I kind of have a heart for that since I went on to DC for for Charlotte that one year so if I can back up yep I agree all right with that I'll add that to the motion with that addition so there's a motion in addition a second and any public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye with no objections motion passes 6 0 we will follow up on the rest of item 10 consider approving the following board nominations keep San Angelo beautiful Sally Sally still here waiting house with SMD 6-2 a first full term ending September 2021 may I have a

[3:51:01] motion I make a motion master mayor miss he's second mini public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye all right motion passes 6 0 we will discuss some consideration of July meeting schedule I would strongly suggest we have the meeting on July 2nd as it would normally be I am Joan because yeah that way City Hall because they have off for the 4th that 5th and they'd have to come back and do City Council the fine to Z so I think we're good to do it on July 2nd done with it so if that's okay keep it to our regular schedule ok budget workshops and tax hearings I think we got notification on these budget workshops so everyone should have those so we'll accept those as as we were notified and now announcements in consideration of future agenda items are yes ma'am there was just one concern with that and Monday September 2nd is a Labor Day holiday and last year on September 3rd we were asked to move that meeting but it had passed the posting deadline for budget for the tax hearing so I just need confirmation right now that everybody is ok to meet Tuesday September the 3rd following Labor Day I think it was a problem last year I'm good ok all right leave it September the 3rd all right then take announcements in consideration of future agenda items d are there any with none we'll move forward adjournment do I have that motion so moved in a second all in favor say aye none opposed we are officially adjourned at 2:30 3:00 p.m.

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=fP0FshSLRgo