San Angelo City Council 6-18-19

[0:00:00] and we will start by having a our prayer Marcello in fact here comes Tom as we were speaking his name he arrived to the City Council three manager to all department heads and to all of you a good morning good morning that's pray father God has become before your presence this morning I just thank you once again for this opportunity father God I asked you to be here yesterday saint angelo protected from all hurt harm danger seen and unseen but i asked you to bring peace into this city lord as we go with them meeting today the council meeting lord I asked you to end down the members of the City Council with wisdom as they carry out the business of the city today Lord we just thank you for this opportunity once again we praise your Holy Name we worship you and honor you this we pray in Jesus name Amen this is probably a historic moment when we didn't pray for rain so mark that down Mia would you like to join me now taxes this will mark another historical

[0:02:28] moment and City Council meetings because we have no proclamations or recognitions today so two things we're going to mark down as his story we will now move into our public comment section of the agenda 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 requests that are discussed an item be placed on a future agenda the council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items I would also like to ask that at this point in time you double check your cell phones and make sure they're on silent or vibrate with that do we have any public comment with no one coming forward we will close the public comment section of the agenda and move on to the consent agenda today I will start with Tommy Hebert do you have anything you want to pull from the consent agenda Tommy no ma'am I do not Tom noting the pool I would like to pull D and F with d E and F pulled from the consent agenda may I have a motion to approve the rest of them items on the agenda moved second from Tommy any public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of approving the consent agenda with the exception of D en F say aye motion passes 6 0 we will now start with

[0:04:35] item D consider authorizing the city manager to reject all bids received for RFP fi n - o 1 - 1 9 audit services and comprehensive annual financial report tina mayor items d and e sort of go together so can we as well consider authorizing the city manager to execute an amendment to the existing professional services agreement with armstrong Bachus & Company LLC for the comprehensive annual audit of the city's financials and other audit service now you're honest good morning mayor City Councilmembers and mister Valenzuela good morning Tina Tina I just need you to help me understand on item D when we put this out for proposals Armstrong and Backus did not submit a proposal as I looked at the background information it was mailed to them but they did not submit a proposal so three other companies submitted a proposal so it looks like item D is rejecting those three and going back in approaching Armstrong Bachus to submit a bid or help me understand an email was sent to Armstrong Baggesen company unfortunately was sent to the partner who was in charge of the audit and the previous five-year contract period and so it was an oversight on their part that they did not receive the request for the repose --all proposal and so in reviewing the three proposals that were submitted while they all did have very qualified firms that submitted they did not present a best value for the city and so we are requesting to reject those proposals and to go back and to extend the current the contract with Armstrong Bachus and company I mean this was approved and recommended by our audit committee as well okay well I just wanted I was looking at that and saw that they hadn't initially bid it made me wonder why so all right thank you

[0:06:43] would you want to make a motion yes to approve item D any item D any motion yes and a second from Harry any public comment on item D any very good caution very good point I wonder how long has it been since new eyes have seen their audit it was a five-year contract before as Tina said and so this was and this was the second of two five-year contracts so they've been reviewing our annual financial statements for ten years thank you just for clarification Carrie would you like to speak thank you just for clarification it's a three-year contract with extension to one-year extensions on it so turns out to be a five-year contract if the company is doing what they need to be doing but it is a three year with two one year extensions Harry do you think that it's unusual that fresh eyes have not seen our accounts I mean isn't it kind of a general policy that every five years would get new eyes in on things like this the idea that you look at it to make sure that I actually happen to sit on the Audit Committee so I was part of this particular process but had also been part of the process throughout the whole year for the last three years I've been part of the process before the audit was done by having conversations with the auditors from Armstrong Bachus to let them know from the concern of citizens as well as the council exactly what I would like them to look at to concentrate on so from my perspective the kafir' that we've looked at just a few weeks ago few council meetings ago certainly was vetted very well and I think they do a great job well I know I have no doubt that they do or but it's just general policy that you get fresh eyes done and what policy is that that you get new eyes to see about every five

[0:08:48] years it's what I've understood in the past yes you may as I mentioned earlier there are new eyes on our financial statements because the partner charge has changed over the course of those ten years as well as the additional staff members that come out to do the field work Thank You mayor if I could yes Steve what you're saying does make sense when you have the same personnel year after year so that principle we don't have a policy nor is it a requirement at this point for cities in Texas that we change periodically but the principle does apply that you want to be careful about having the same eyes doing the same piece of work every year and as Tina mentioned the personnel assigned to the work has changed and we do watch that and as Harry said they will place special emphasis on different areas each year to maintain that fresh perspective if we get if it stretches longer it's something we can talk about but I think you should go to new people and these you know they may have raised their bid because they know that you need a one time job to come in and look at things and and so and even the Bacchus Armstrong and Bacchus may have thought that they may weren't elet eligible to to give another proposal but I think new eyes need to be seen seeing these properties accounts and everything that we've talked about is kind of in-house and we kind of need somebody outside just to reassure the people thank you thank you Steve any would further public comment with no further public comment we will take a vote all in favor of approving item D and item Issei I was none opposed it passes 6 0 we will now move on to item F which is consider authorizing city staff

[0:10:53] to apply for a HUD grant to fund a rapid rehousing for homeless program through the Texas homeless Network in the amount of 150,000 dollars and authorizing the city manager to execute all related documents Bob yes ma'am good morning I just have a quick question I know some of the grants that we apply for require a City match and I was wondering with this grant proposal would it require any match from city funds it does require a 25% match but it can be in kind and we've talked with the public housing authority they have a rapid rehousing voucher program if you recall about two years ago we initiated a pilot program very similar to this now we're going said it was very successful tell us about it was about that program it was basically we provided vultures for homeless individuals with the city through some additional funds we would get them off the street get me to a hotel and then the public housing authority would find a permanent housing that's the rapid rehousing model we're going to extrapolate that and expand that into a bigger program to cover more individuals and the public housing authority voucher can be in kind match and that's what we're hoping for we're not gonna use cash as the match so I think you'll work we're very comfortable with that and it is a coalition program we're gonna we have several of our members are going to sign a memo use to be part of this rapid rehousing program so we're pretty excited about it so if when you apply for it you will make it clear that you're looking at in kind matches I'm understanding that absolutely what would that in kind be in kind of the vouchers from the public authority in fact we did a preliminary review and it seems that we're gonna

[0:12:57] have plenty of match like 107 thousand dollars and all we need is $42,000 match so we're gonna be in good shape right all right thank you Bob I appreciate that mayor mood to approve I make a motion to approve this item if all right Tommy second set any public comment I had questions on you know how many people are we looking to to deal with to handle is this for the whole year is it for of just a few people or how is this what are the numbers involved we don't have exact numbers of course our last homeless camlistore than 68 so you can see that numbers you may see it maybe seem small but 2068 individuals around San Angelo makes an impact a visual impact unfortunately so we're $150,000 we're figure we're gonna shoot for about a hundred individuals because not all homeless individuals want to participate and so that's gonna be a problem but there's plenty that do want to participate and we're going to try to target those sort thing about a hundred people that's just general number and there's no specifics at this point we know anything about Salvation Army at this point they still plan on opening up next next month I believe there's a representative here if you want to have additional questions she can I'm sure she could do that I'd like to hear I think it would be an important information for us to have morning morning if you'll state your name please Janet Sheen um at this moment we are still waiting on funds to come through we do not have a specific open date as of yet because we are relying on the

[0:15:01] funds to open up so the intention is to reopen the intention is to reopen but we don't want to end up in the same position you know lacking the funds it takes about half a million dollars a year five hundred thousand to run the shelter so without those funds you know we don't want to open up having just a little bit and end up having to close it back down again but we do have to two hundred thousand dollar grants ending we're just waiting on the answer thank you for that update any further public comment with no public further public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye with any knows passes 6 0 we will move into our regular agenda and we will start with item a which is the first reading and public hearing of an ordinance to modify the Code of Ordinances to remove the policy for lake nasser thee lot leases sell or lease Lots and the lease of city-owned property through recreational leases and to require such policy to be adopted by resolution teresa thank you mayor this is one of these cleanup items that we're doing in the Code of Ordinances our code is filled with things that are generally held as policies including this real estate policy and what it does that essentially sets the parameters for leases and sales of Lake property as part of the cleanup we're removing those things from our code white blur to make our code simpler for people to understand but to also I think it's $18 a page that our code provider charges us every time we change something in the code so in order to save some city funds we believe that it's a better policy to put these things into there's not going to be we will be bringing a policy back after second reading that's going to be proposing some updates to the numbers we're going

[0:17:04] to be providing information to the property owners who will be affected by that so that they are aware of the proposals that we're going to be making I mean you'll have an opportunity to adopt that policy separate from this ordinance but all this ordinance does is removes that policy from the code okay so there's no statistics no numbers no anything attached to this not to this one this is purely code cleanup we bring the policy back we will have some numbers for you on the new policy okay with that do I have questions from Council no questions from Council do I have a motion Tommy moves to approve a 0 second second by Thom public comment please Steve Hampton I had a question according to my legal dictionary a resolution is temporary and an ordinance is permanent sales are permanent I understand so we're not completing sales through a resolution we're completing sales through a sales contract all we're doing with the resolution is adopting a policy it's very common practice for us to do it that way when we want counsel to set direction the difference in addition to being part of the Code of Ordinances is it takes two readings to change something there's a new state provision out there that everything is going to still require a public hearing so the public is still going to be able to speak on a resolution but it really is just a simpler process it would come through here yes sir okay thank you any further public comment no further public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of regular agenda item a say aye 6 0 item B is a public hearing discussion and deliberation on requested projects to be considered for funding with Grant year 2019 Community Development Block Grant CDBG and home investment partnerships home grant funds from the US Department of Housing and

[0:19:06] Urban Development and we have Bob solace back with us good morning again we're here to a good direction on our recommended allocation for the federal grant funds for the 2019 grant year we did ensure that the recommended projects meet our five-year strategic plan and while we had a slight bump in funding last year this year we took a pretty good hit over 48,000 at CDBG and over 43,000 in home grants this is the funding trend you can see unfortunately it's been going down steadily over the years with exception of last year's bump we still have a downward trend unfortunately of course affects our projects and programs quickly but what do we attribute that downward trend to you probably said this before and I just don't remember but it's federal funding us the a lot of times where were slated to the federal decisions we a lot of times we have no control over that so it's basically the allocation from from the HUD the President's budget affects it quite quite a bit so we do have a we're hoping to get we make it a little bump later on the year they're no they're just they're still talking about that but that's the numbers as I speak now so in fact one time CDBG and home grants were on the table for elimination that was back through the Obama administration troubles administration did the same thing but it's so far our it hasn't happened we're hoping to continues for the fiscal year not the calendar year this is fiscal year yes so fiscal year ending September 30th yes ma'am so October the 1st starts this year this is what you're seasoning today

[0:21:09] is what would start October 1 yes ma'am October the 1st it's a little bird a little bit behind because of the way the HUD categorizes the grant it is a program year 19 all though it's physical year 20 as that's how they do it that's okay just so we're where you might also talk about you had a five-year plan and this fits in with your strategic five-year plan do you have some bullet points on what that five-year plan is right so we're actually we had council approve it five years ago we have another one coming up we start on next five-year plan next year so you'll see the comprehensive plan next time you see me next year some highlights of that or what the highlights is tie into it basically it is we're going to deal with a lot of the issues we talk about we deal with for example we're going to deal with the cost burden the individuals are are experiencing through some of our programs we're gonna address homelessness those kind of things no specific I wish I brought with me but I'd and unfortunately but most of our programs do meet our five-year plan and again we're trying to ensure that special needs are addressed those kind of things without specifics unfortunately I'm sorry like I said we do look at the housing trends here at San Angelo not surprisingly we still have a cost burden and it calls birdies basically people pay more than 30 percent of their income towards housing you can see the renters are affected more than homeowners at 42 percent and 12 percent of those pay 50 percent of their income to to do ink to housing which of course affects the rest of your ability when you say owners is 21 percent versus renters 42 percent does

[0:23:14] that 21 percent is it inclusive of mortgage insurance property taxes and utilities because renters don't have the property taxes and sometimes don't have utilities and don't have insurance so is this comp numbers or simply rent as a line and a mortgage line for an owner I believe these are hard numbers of course I believe they use the the straight number in other words you pay X amount for a rent you pay X amount for your mortgage of course no mortgage will include some of the other additional costs as well I believe so they would probably include if you have a mortgage you you're paying insurance for example so that's the number that we cannot stay in property tax they're not paying property taxes that might not be a part of the formula so I don't know unfortunately you so don't get me some Easter hunt numbers that we use every year we still see more than fourteen percent of the population in poverty and cars or is that nationwide that is locally nationwide we're a little bit below I should go a little bit above the nation we're a little bit better off than the state so it's local I mean we have fourteen point five or fifteen percent below poverty we do that's what it means we also have agent of America agent of San Angelo of course America as well seventeen percent are social security eligible fourteen percent over 65 and of course we have an aging halsey stock and again that's part of our strategic plan to address those things and this is our recommendation we're asking for one hundred sixteen thousand for adman hundred twelve thousand for program delivery 186 thousand for blitz well here we get projects hardened twenty five thousand for our emergency repairs and 141,000 for our debt service for producers park and these numbers do

[0:25:20] include program income and funds from last year and does any of the emergency repairs go to for example things like the bradford neighborhood homeowners or individuals who lived in the bradford area absolutely in fact we already used this year's emergency funds we've had several clients come to us so we've already helped with several several units so several projects although they are citywide anyone a celtic you and these are our home recommendations 31,000 796 for home admin 131,000 165 for first-time homebuyers and 85,000 for TBR a which is tenant-based rental assistance for special needs a MHMR and 120,000 for our chotto set aside go back to this one slide I just want to ask one more question sorry on the previous slide on the debt payment service that is the debt we owe for the 108 program that we used for producers park that is correct that's a section 1 rate loan and what is the timeframe on that how many more years do we owe on that 2025 immatures in 2025 it mr. okay well actually that's all I've got if counsel is comfortable with these recommendations will craft a annual action plan it comes to you next month and they will log before they will send that off to HUD for their approval Sunday galilea I know that several of us have received comments on some of the houses some houses that Galilee helped to build or we have we changed builders or how explain how we go out and select the builders for that the chotto is a special category it is they apply to the

[0:27:27] city they get vetted and of course council approves the chotto wish only we only have one Chotu right now and that is Galilee at one time habitat was part of the chotto there's some requirements to go along with it so we do I don't galley does have a pretty good developer Bobby brewer it does a very good job I'm sure there's some issues sometimes but for the most part we've had very good luck with their materials their construction capability and abilities we're comfortable with them actually with him for a long time and very successful yeah I agree do I have further questions from Council yes tom Bob tell me on the first-time homebuyers how do we qualify them for that I mean how do we judge who will qualify and who won't basically that to me income eligible that's the moderate income below based on the sliding scale based on family size but they have to get a they have to be able to get a mortgage through one of the participating companies banks lenders we have about a dozen of those who participate with us and then basically they get their squared away and when it comes to clothes here we come in with a check to help pay the down payment closing costs the the another program that we have is through it's not here because it's not home funds but it's the coast of DC affordable housing program that's gap financing very similar but they get brand-new housing and we pay the gap between the mortgage up to sixty thousand and then the construction cost usually about forty thousand that would come with that and so that's a pretty successful program it's we don't do maybe we do buy six a year based on the funds we get from the coast of DC are there questions from Council yes my Baba average huh me first time sorry how many first-timers do we have a year Allen are utilizing that and we get there what I was always Marla Sarris yet

[0:29:34] she had to leave unfortunately I think we get about 15 15 or 50 I'm sorry and I'm thinking I'm sorry I'm I'm trying to Robin oh yeah that's not no no we do well we offers about 10,000 to 15,000 or so for each down payment closing cost project so we do two strikes triple that Thad you're gonna talk about maybe what I'll have I've known a math gap I'm thinking maybe 30 well 10 times 30 would be 300 right no it would be fifteen thousand thousand fifteen thousand per home per home per unit yes so less than 10 I'm thinking 13 comes to mind 13 comes to mind I'm sorry I wish I'd of I can get back to you sir is it a ballpark about 13 is where we'd nobody do because it slides a little bit some don't require zone zigzag some require 10,000 some require 8,000 some require the for the for the full 15,000 so that's a nap so it's kind of changed a little bit so 13 comes to mind you have further questions from Council with a motion in a second do I have oh no I haven't taken a motion sorry do I have a motion I don't think I've asked for a motion have a okay and with that do we have public comment Steve Hampton how again my question is how many people are we how many lives are we touching with this money you said you gave them one on the home but the others it breaks down pretty quick they don't get very much money it seems to me November I'll be here with the caper which covers everything we've done and all the numbers we've affected for this past year it changes every program for example emergencies we've had seventy

[0:31:37] seventy six individuals one year we've gotten up to a hundred blitzes we've done 47 houses to live down this year we did 26 homes so it kind of varies a little bit but we'll get a full report in November I could tell you that and in and and a fortune we do have it on last year's capers on our website and somebody wants to go and see what we did last year it's pretty cobble to what we expect to do this year as well with less money a little bit less money yes well that's what happened was you notice that what because we have less money one program went away that's the homeless prevention program we couldn't afford it so that goes off we and that allows us to continue with our blitz it allows us to continue with our emergency program which are probably that's the or of what we do that blitz program is fabulous it is thank you all right I'm doing further public comment Terry Terry Jackson I just want to say that what Bob does and what his programs do are fabulous helps a lot of people the first time homebuyer program also it allows people that that aren't able to get everything together they have good credit they have everything except a down payment and/or their closing costs in this pays up to 12% for them which usually covers all that and it's a fabulous program for people that work really hard and just need a little help so thank you for continuing it because we just brought up that as it relates to people needing a down payment and closing costs what happens if they default on the mortgage after we've paid for the down payment and the closing cost it might not ever happen just asking yeah the requirements is that they live in a house for five years if that we can get our money back we can sue forget to get the money back and we need to but after five years it is we you sign off the lead so if they default

[0:33:44] we we try to get some of our money back but can't depends on the process rarely do we get because we're secondary what's wrong we do get some funds but usually we don't get home we never get home thank you any further public comment no further public comment we will take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes six zero we will move into item C first reading a public hearing of an ordinance approving pd-1 9-0 for a rezoning from the general commercial heavy commercial c g CH zoning district to plan development PD zoning district to allow for existing uses and uses permitted in the general commercial CG zoning history an overall use plan and an off-site sign comprising a total of two point three eight acres generally located at 1909 West Beauregard Avenue John thank you John James Director of Planning and Development Services this is a planned development conchos concho collision which is located on Beauregard they've purchased all the properties you see here in blue and this is just a planned development that incorporates all of that property that they now own into one planned development that basically allows what they're already doing it does a couple of other things one they own this little triangle piece because that's technically on a separate piece of property normally they couldn't put a sign there and this because it's part of the overall PD it will allow them to place a nice monument sign in that triangle for their business which means it'll be maintained right yes part of their idea here is to improve all of the property make it look nicer including cleaning up that triangle this is consistent the request is consistent

[0:35:47] with the future land use plan of neighborhood center and with the existing underlying zoning so they bought those other buildings yes yes and so you can see a few pictures here of those others there's their main facility and then that's the building across the street again it is designated commercial it does fit with the commercial corridor in that area and it does consolidate the property and allows all of what they want to do staff does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission unanimously with that I'll be happy to answer any questions do I have questions from Council none I don't see any owner on this and I'm pretty excited about what he has a potential for that triangle peace beautifying that area so I'm okay with this okay move to approved by Lane a second by Harry second do I have public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of approving item C say aye with none opposed motion passes six zero item D first reading a public hearing of an ordinance approving PD one 905 a rezoning from the single-family residential rs1 district to the planned development PD zoning district to allow for uses permitted in the general commercial CG zoning district with the principal use of water sports rental retail sales vote slips and an office on the city of San Angelo special lease property located at 21 38 Mary e Lee Park Road comprising 1.2 3 acres John thank you this is another one of these where there's an existing lease on the property on city-owned property but all of the uses allowed by the lease aren't actually allowed by the zoning this is cleaning up the zoning adding a plan development that basically comports

[0:37:52] with the lease allowing all the uses that the lease allows and so this really isn't adding much new but it's accommodating what the lease already encompasses a few pictures of the area this is the five-year plan some of the expansion that they want to do on the property again all of this is consistent with the existing lease where's the water park not aware of a water park inflatables I think those would be in the water on this graphic I won't read through all of these the the staff report does include all of the rationale for why this is recommended again it is consistent with the existing lease staff does recommend approval there are some conditions listed in the plan development the planning commission also recommended unanimously those conditions are the following accessory uses are and you can see the list there mainly water and boat related kinds of things and then some of our standard requirements they they have to submit a site plan prior to any future development to ensure that it meets all city codes and I won't read through all of these but you can see that the plan development basically makes sure that uses allowed on the property are consistent with what the lease allows as well that'll be happy to answer any questions um do you I'm not having heard anything from anyone pro or con so I would move approval other questions from Council then Lane will second Tommy's motion with that do we a public comment yes please good morning entry Slayton we

[0:40:02] own water dog rentals there's way we can answer any questions if we if we need to how excited are you my water park thank you do we have any questions I'll get them with that let's take a vote all in favor say aye none opposed motion passes 6 0 item E is first reading a public hearing of an ordinance approving case su1 9 - o - a special use to allow for a golf driving range outdoor multi-use sports facilities and related recreational activities outdoor miniature golf and outdoor events on 21.5 3 6 acres located at 28 38 South College Hills Boulevard and I have John back on again thank you this is another one of those city-owned property lease either a completed lease or in the process and about to be completed I'm not sure the status on that but this is the red Arroyo the trail goes through there College Hills Drive and so this is the many the existing miniature golf facility is right there so this would be an expansion of the use on that property it's a little hard to see here but there would be a couple of outdoor ball fields as well as potential for an indoor facility as well did we work through the issue of I see Shane nodding his head because I think the last time we presented it there was some concern about stormwater runoff area needed and so we've worked through all of that Shane and you're very comfortable he

[0:42:05] says yes thumbs up we go keep keep going and and again this is kind of a at least a three phase there's the lease that you all approve this is the zoning that basically just allows the uses on the property and then any development on the property were to require site planning that would include drainage studies ensuring that they meet parking and of course in this area it would include review by the floodplain folks as well here's a site plan of all as I mentioned what's proposed on the facility mainly outdoor recreation but also some indoor as well as well as a retail in the existing building there or a possible new building as well just some pictures of the area you can see what's across the street existing retail there's the existing building and the existing golf range as well and the parking lot this is a use that is already in existence on the property and again as you know you you all have discussed the lease in the past does it make sense to continue with the existing lease or to end the existing lease and start with a new lease with a longer term I wouldn't defer that question either to Cindy or come on down I saw her wanting to come forward I could see it from here good morning Cindy priests real estate manager Council has already approved a new 20-year lease on that property we are just waiting for the tenant to purchase the improvements and the purchase of the improvements are contingent on the rezoning so council has approved that new lease we are just waiting for the tenant thank you for that update we did send out our notifications to the

[0:44:10] surrounding properties one in favor and none in opposition staff does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission unanimously in this case also there are some conditions of approval including the transfer of the lease which sounds like has already been done review and approval by the floodplain administrator for any development in the floodplain urban design review of any improvements on the property we thought that was particularly important because this is city-owned property and it is on park land adjacent to the trail that's heavily used any major changes to the plan would require approval coming back to you all monitor changes could be approved by staff and then because of the park and the adjacent residence is that any lighting be shielded so as not to create nuisances to the adjacent properties my first question in this Lane Karnas area yeah it says dewitt but I was sure it was lanes but I did have a question Lane go ahead Billy and then Lane can address you on it if it's bad item number 2 where it talks about the floodplain manager approval for development in the floodway and floodplain seems like in some of the background information I was reading it talked about some studies needing to be and I just wonder who pays for those studies does the applicant pay for those studies or the city responsible for those studies my understanding is that falls to the applicant that would be handled by the lease but that's my understand Lance is here to add comment on that good morning yes that Lance Overstreet engineering engineering does manage the flood plain and that is a study that is required for the applicant or the developer to pay for on their own we call it Noah in the

[0:46:14] flood way it's a no rise study which essentially means that anything that they are doing within that flood way will not change the water level in or surrounding anything else to affect things and so that is and we have notified the developer as well as is a representing engineer that that would be required for the development and we will have to have that approved so thank you just a couple more conditions one is we're also proposing to limit the hours of operation again because of the adjacency of residences and these outdoor ball fields you can imagine the noise and the light from those at a certain hour we wouldn't want this to be a 24 hours a day operation and so it would they would have to shut down by 11:30 yes that's assuming everybody stays up to 11:30 it's not but that's the compromise of we want to shut it down at some point we don't want to make it too early for people who made it go to bed earlier it could still create an issue but that's pretty common there consistent it also allows them the kind of activity that they want to have on the side so it's it's a balance for sure yes Billy are we consistent with those hours of operation throughout the city or do we base our condition of approval depending on what it is and where it is how do we do that we try to be consistent and so we look often to our noise ordinance for example that has our although I think that goes to 10:30 so we we try to be consistent and that's usually what we start with or those hours but then depending on a case-by-case we sometimes look at different hours like in this case we thought making that a little bit later would be appropriate in this particular case we would still have the nose noise ordinance in effect of 10:30 so even

[0:48:17] though this is 11:30 you wouldn't get to extend the noise part of it to 11:30 Oh cheering okay yes please what happens if we're having a tournament and we need to use these facilities it's one of those weekend tournaments that goes two to three mornings can they actually bring in and ask for a variance for a specific time I could utilize our special events process to do that and we can waive any of those requirements if and where's the water feature John wait till they get the drainage report then we'll tell you that Lane do you have any questions or comments I'm excited about it just because everyone keeps saying they want more and more things available for the youth and whatever so I am thrilled that someone's taken ownership this and had a great vision for what could be I'm here the only question I have is in regards to the noise our Bell Street complex what is what are the hours of operation that they we can have tournaments there because this parcel of land is actually more remote in relation to the nearest home than it is Bell Street Bell Street just backs up right across the river from that in the nearest home maybe on Vista Del Arroyo past the swimming racket and across Millbrook maybe so what are our operations over there I'm not aware of any limitations over there I may be wrong but girls coming forward because we'll have tournaments go a long time

[0:50:19] over there usually for tournaments it's very similar to this usually it doesn't start quite that early and doesn't usually end quite that late maybe about 7 to 11 I'm just getting at this is more way more remote in relation to the nearest home I don't have a problem with it so I'll move to approve a move to approve from Lane do I have a second a second from Tommy and now we will open up conversation for the public with no conversation no comments from the public we will ask for a vote all in favor say aye none opposed passes 6-0 we will move to item F first reading a public hearing of an ordinance approving z19 - oh six a rezoning from the single-family residential rs1 zoning district to the two family residential RS two zoning district on point two acres located at 401 for Coliseum Drive John thank you this is a rezoning from Rs 100 RS - that would allow instead of a single-family it would allow duplex you can see the building here it's a very long building and in the past was used as a multi-family residence we can verify at least four units and maybe more in the past although that you ceased for more than 12 months and so because it wasn't allowed by the underlying zoning it's not allowed to continue as a multi-family they're simply asking to convert it to a duplex - a lot two units within that one building it is in the future Land Use Plan is neighborhood you can see that most of the surrounding area is zoned rs1 for single-family although it's fairly close to this commercial area so that's part of the reason we were okay because as you as you get over here you can't really see it on this it does transition to that commercial area so

[0:52:23] it's kind of at the edge of this single-family neighborhood this is a couple pictures of the building again it is a long building that has in the past been used for multiple multiple family occupancy this does meet all of the standards for duplex area it was the multifamily use was discontinued as I mentioned but this was kind of a compromise between requiring them to go just to a single-family residence for a building that has been used for multiples in the past but I trying to accommodate the concerns of the surrounding neighbors in not allowing this to go back to a three four or five unit building and so duplexes kind of that compromise that staff is supporting we did send out our notifications received one in favor and one in opposition the opposition was largely along the lines of this is all single-family around it it should stay single-family and not be allowed multiple does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission unanimously any questions would you like to make any comment you know I went by and looked at it and go into an rs2 to my kid basically fit a duplex fits what's there and it goes away from that it would probably keep five or six families out of it so it's the best use for the property as presented so I'm all in favor and I moved to approve Elaine is seconding do we have a comment from the public on this item with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye none opposed motion passes 6 0 we will move into item G first reading a public hearing of an ordinance approving z1 907 a rezoning from the neighborhood commercial CN zoning district to the low-rise multi-family residential rm1 zoning district being point nine one five acres located at 50 205 South Bryant Boulevard thank you this may look familiar this is

[0:54:27] a perdy that was recently rezone from multi-family residential to commercial there was the owner had a potential commercial use for that property and so came in for the commercial zoning now that use fell through and so they're wanting to just go back to the multi-family residential you can see that there is residential almost surrounding the property and so that does make sense to be more residential and I think what they would probably be looking at is something similar to what's there just to the south this is neighborhood center so it from our perspective and the long-range plan this could either go commercial or multi-family residential either one would be consistent it is right there on Bryant and so again it's that makes it appropriate for either use so we're okay with the rezoning back to multifamily here you can see the property is just off to the right of this picture you can see the homes that are back behind this property the subject property is there and off to the left in that picture again this is consistent with the surrounding staff recommended approval of the commercial zoning back a few months ago but we're also supportive of the multifamily either one we did send out our notifications did not receive any responses in favor or in opposition does recommend approval and that planning commission also recommended approval unanimously we have a time frame that is in place from changing it from one zoning to the next zoning like for example well you know I'm asking so if every six weeks someone wanted to ask to change the zoning that is okay normally the requirement is if you're denied or a zoning and you have to wait

[0:56:31] and I can't remember it's either six months or 12 months six months before you can come back so you you can't get denied and then keep asking every month for the same but in terms of going back and forth like this there's really no barrier to that now they do have to pay the application fee fill out an application go through this process so I don't think there's really a concern this is the only one I can think of that in recent memory that has gone back and forth a couple of times so I don't know that it's a problem and there is there is the cost of going through the process so I don't think people would be doing it unnecessarily Tommy do you have questions I do not have had no comments on this and it is consistent with the area to go back to the multifamily side move approval there second Elaine second set so is there any public comment on this item with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye aye with none opposed motion passes six zero we'll move on to item H which is the first reading a public hearing of an ordinance approving z19 - oh eight a rezoning from the ranch and the state are any and general commercial heavy commercial CG ch zoning districts - the heavy commercial zoning district on two point four nine acres located at 5050 north Chadbourne Street John thank you this is a rezoning and you'll see a little bit on the next slide why it's important but here you can see the property this whole area you can see is plan in the plan for commercial but when the Chadbourne corridor was zoned it was basically some distance back they just drew a line on each side of Chadbourne and so you can see how I split a lot of properties and so this subject property most of it is in the heavy commercial zoning already there's just this back little triangle that is part of the

[0:58:34] ranch in a state and this rezoning is simply to clean that up pull in that little piece of ranch in a state into the property and rezone the whole thing heavy commercial so why are the pieces to the right of that not also part of that this is that completes that trying no but that doesn't complete the other it could this is the property requested by the property owner in some cases on a case like this we'll look at the surrounding properties and we may recommend changes to those in this case partly because some of those adjacent properties are already homes if they if we were to ask them they may actually want to go to ranch in a state instead of commercial so we thought in this case we wanted to just stick with the applicants request and not look at a larger area it is an existing business consistent with the the C c/g CH or the heavy commercial zoning this would allow them to expand to the back of their property onto that piece that's currently zoned ranch in a state which they can't currently do it is consistent with the plan as I mentioned and it would allow them to expand we did send out our notifications we received two in favor one in opposition the opposition was in your packet it wasn't real clear to me from the letter exactly what their concern was does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission unanimously you have to answer any questions do I have questions tom same things of several oh no it's Keating and it's a cleanup of the zoning and a plant I've talked to two of the people that were concerned both of them after explained to him while he was cleaning up the zone and his expansion is actually going to put some conditions on him actually lower the noise and everything a little bit that the bodyshop has that much but his hours of operation didn't even bother me at all so it'll look very

[1:00:35] clean from Arion nice job all right didn't is that a record with new with that said moved to approve as presented a second and a second by Harry any public comment good morning good morning Erica Carter with Carter of interest engineering I'm just here to answer any questions Phil have any any questions from Council for Erica but none thank you for being here we'll take a vote all in favor say aye with none opposed motion passes 6-0 item I first reading a public hearing of an ordinance approving the abandonment and vacation of a 15 foot wide by 200 foot long point zero six eight five acres or 3,000 square feet public alley located south of West Beauregard Avenue north of West Colorado Street between south Tyler Street and south Polk Street John thank you this is related to the rezoning we saw earlier for concho collision this is part of that facility as you may have noticed they they owned all of these Lots now and they purchased a lot across the alley and so they're wanting to abandon the alley so that they can incorporate all of their property on that side of the street into one lot without the alley intervening it is as I mentioned in the zoning case it is consistent with our plan and the zoning for the area or surrounding area here's a look you can see the alley right here on this picture this is the concho collision facility this is the property that they've recently purchased and again so that's the reason for abandoning the alley is to be able to incorporate there's properties across the alley all into one unified piece of property as we look at abandonments one of the things we look at is the use in the area is it used so in this case

[1:02:38] nobody uses that for access or for garages there are utilities in the area but we will require a utility easement well either they move the utilities or they maintain an easement that allows for the access to those utilities moving forward not received any negative opposition to this again we're recommending as we normally do that we don't close part of the alley so concho collision is working with the other properties behind this width to accommodate closing the entire alley not just the half that affects them staff does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission unanimously that and here's the summary of normal conditions again they have 18 months to replant the properties all together to basically allow the ally to be incorporated into the adjacent properties maintaining an easement for those existing utilities that are within the existing current ally you haven't answer any questions Lane do you have any questions or comments question I'm good with this also move to approve okay in a second by Tommy any public comment on item I no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye with none opposed motion passes 6 0 item J first reading a public hearing of an ordinance amending chapter 12 Planning and Development Exhibit C land development and subdivision ordinance chapter 5 procedural requirements for processing subdivision section section 3 stages of development review subpart C administrative subdivisions by including the review process thank you this is just a cleanup back a few months ago actually about eight months ago I think we brought you an ordinance change to the subdivision ordinance in the process of submitting the documents in the council packet to you all this

[1:04:40] particular section of the ordinance got inadvertently deleted so you basically adopted the changes to the ordinance effectively deleting this section so this is basically just putting it back in since that section was amended we couldn't bring it back for six months and so now we've waited six months and now we're bringing it back as you read it it is just a procedural thing when you have to send application in how long we have to review it whether it gets reviewed administratively are sent to the Planning Commission so it's and there's no substantive change to what we're currently doing again it was just a section of the ordinance that accidentally got deleted that we need to add back in all right do I have questions from Council Harry we discover an error like this and I know the only recourse is is really to wait that six months but if it's significant and impacts a citizen or business we ought to figure out a way that we could make this come back to the council to to correct it I don't know what that is but I can tell you that we really really need to make sure that we've got we got a process in place that meant that allows that Julian you could bring it back earlier if absolutely necessary right now the code says that we would wait six months so we would need to revise the code in order to revise it but if it was absolutely necessary we could make that happen sooner than six months in this case eight months went by right yeah we waited the six months and then by the time we got it already and for you all it was an extra month or two I think that's right if it was something critical it would be good to be able to bring it back sooner especially in a case like this where it was just an inadvertent it was just accidentally deleted okay any further quick move to approved by Harry any a second by Lane any public comment with no public

[1:06:45] comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye aye with no nays passes six zero item K updated discussion of hotel occupancy tax performance and eligible capital improvement projects you know yes ma'am this is an opportunity for the City Council to review the performance of the hotel occupancy tax fund year-to-date and to consider funding possible funding source for some eligible capital project items that are in our capital improvement plan so my first slide here is just kind of giving you an update on how the fund is performing this year you can see here we're 67 percent through the fiscal year but hotel occupancy tax is at 82 percent of what we budgeted for the fiscal year other is just that the interest income that comes into that account and then of course the expenditures that have gone out to our external partners as well as to our own internal other funds any questions on that side you can see your to date that revenue is over expenditure by a almost two hundred and eight thousand dollars year-to-date can you talk about fund balance yes ma'am I have a slide for that so the fiscal year 19 beginning fund balance was one point three five million dollars less than 90-day reserve that we recommend leaving there in case of downturn and the hotel occupancy tax it leaves a eight hundred thousand dollars available for one-time funding needs I will tell you also that let me see what the amount is here if we project revenue over expenditure flat to for the remainder of the fiscal year we do expect to add about six hundred thousand dollars to that fund balance but of course as dependent on performance and the projects you're presenting today right now there are only two projects

[1:08:48] that are in our capital improvement plan which allows us to consider them for funding one would be roof replacements at Fort Concho and the other would be improvements at the Bill Aylor senior memorial river stage okay Carl are you here to speak to those yes ma'am how much detail would you like okay Fort Concho roof replacement and this is going back to replace virtually all the roofs if we do all of them looking at about 1 million $167,000 how much 1 million 160 67,000 replace all of the Fort Concho roofs that need replace that's correct and we have a plan to do all of them except for barracks 1 & 2 because those will as part of the half cent sales tax project to redo the Visitor Center combined with that project we could pull those out and do those with that project what's the time frame on that probably looking at two three years and we could Pat what worked that doesn t be done on those roofs could be patched with some of the insurance money we got from the claim to tie those over tie those over until we can complete completely redo them so if we take those factor those out look at what's available from the state office fund balance to apply towards reroofing about a hundred thousand dollars the funds available in insurance from tml Texas Municipal League 125 thousand there's a gap of a six hundred seventeen thousand okay and we have one point one six seven million in needs yes and we have six hundred seventeen thousand and funds now that's the gap that's what we would in the gap between the one 167 and the 225

[1:10:52] available no you have the other six you've gotten insurance and claims the other number that he is not mentioning as the three hundred twenty-five thousand dollars that you would decrease that original one point one sixty seven million and that is due to pulling out those two other roofs I believe if you want me to go through the numbers again I will yeah I think we should just to be clear can you before that can you prioritize that do you have a prioritization of the ones that absolutely the most crucial and what those would total they are all pretty much in the stage where they do need to be replaced okay there is a plan where we could do it in two phases my concern is number one that those ribs are in such horrible condition and should we continue to get rain we're in a pretty bad situation the storm storm issues and then number two if I'm not mistaken did one of the roofs get hit by lightning yes which and they're in the prioritization of roofs where did that one fall that's part of the work that could be done as is patching the ties over to redo barracks one to two so if I just go through the numbers right quick the total costs in our estimate from one vendor which we put this out to bid it could be lower than this but this is from one qualified vendor 1 million one hundred sixty seven thousand if we factor out doing barracks one in two roofs that's three to four years down the road yes but we could we could repair it and patch it to tie it over we could subtract three hundred twenty-five thousand from that add a hundred thousand to the project from the state office fund balance add a hundred and twenty five thousand from tml insurance brings a shortage of six hundred and

[1:12:55] seventeen thousand dollars okay Billy please go ahead how many buildings are we talking about Carl that just seems really really really how many buildings do you have I have 22 total buildings of which 17 or 18 are classified as cedar shake roofs and probably eventually need repair is that what's making the cost higher was the cedar that is correct and we are beholden to that for several reasons one and most importantly that's the way the buildings were built local state and federal codes if I do anything else not that there really is an alternative I risk losing no certifications grants status so forth to address the mayor's comment earlier regarding barracks 1 we did take a lightning strike one heck of a lightning strike it hit the roof dormer the air vent not necessarily the roof we are awaiting the tml insurance adjustment on that and whether or not TM gives us any money for that that roof vent and all the other roof vents are part of several projects that are being let out right now and should be finished by the end of the year so that will be fixed I think the other issues on the roofs are we haven't necessarily prioritized them we can depending on the money that council is agreeable to but another variable not to make this more complicated than it is is that the tml money of a hundred and twenty five thousand that karl has referenced can only be assigned individually to certain buildings it cannot be used as a pool so if we pull out some of those buildings

[1:15:01] or prioritize them we possibly would lose a small portion of that that's why the 125,000 is a smaller figure than the original tml adjusted figure of two hundred and twenty three thousand I think because a we've used some of that and B we're losing some of that because of prioritizing certain roofs and thanks to Tina there's another issue of a deadline our risk manager has kindly prevailed upon tml to extend the deadline on this money to the end of the year I sort of doubt we could get any further beyond that so we're kind of in a situation where we need to make some decision and move ahead within the next month or so to get this out or do whatever counsel pleases the figure that Carl mentioned earlier yes as a single-source figure we are seeking and looking at other options but there are a few as you well know in time we're in County but that certainly doesn't preclude us from putting it out the bid and seeing what happens and we might get lucky Lane do you have a question 22 buildings we have what is the total square footage 105 thousand square feet ooh cedar shakes approximate knowing that bid what the and I'm assuming cedar shake style roofing goes along the Lots lines as normal composite where they fitted out per square do you know what an average cost of a cedar shake runs the cost here is twofold you're paying course for the labor and the materials we were advised by one contractor let the cost of the shingles and we're using terms here interchangeably has not gone up appreciably in the last two years which is good but the labor is the key component but I would say based on what

[1:17:04] I've seen a market rate you're looking at an eight to nine dollar per square foot total cost on the low end and a 10 or $11 per square foot caused on the high end labor being your key issue so they're bidding out the squares of just material when you say that instead of some roofers where they'll say for this type of composite roof you're looking at a $15 square no no no the flavors included no sir the figures that we are quoting you our total cost not that would include labor and materials that's the 10th 11th that's the 10 to 11 it could be 8 or 9 per square foot or it could be higher depending on what kind of bid you receive but just based on some jobs we have done this is the figure we're dealing with the biggest issue in a previous project we had with offices quarters one which course was totally removed for private money was the cost of shingles and you may recall there was a tariff issue of our neighbor to the north which came and somewhat went but that wasn't another effect but right now this price seems to be stable a cording to our consultant do I have further questions I'm hearing a wait and then I'll get you Tommy I think just comment first of all this is the best restored for west of the Mississippi it is a prize for set Angela we need to keep this in mind as we make this investment and it's truly an investment in this particular that in the four so from my perspective I think this is something that really needs to be done and certainly if you've got excess hot funds what better place to spend them so from my perspective I think we need to go forward this Tommy you know help help me out I've heard the numbers the one one point one six seven million and then we've got a gap of six hundred seventeen thousand so Carl Bob Tina what what one one point one six

[1:19:09] seven gets all your race you have sort of an option a and an option B let's start with a one point one six seven that figure represents the reroofing of all the roofs on the Ford actually not including the hospital which was not the Claire does needing any fixing and includes barracks one and to the to the second and third largest buildings on the post we are proposing as an option be that you deduct the cost of barracks one and two which is approximately three hundred and twenty thousand dollars give or take because eventually those buildings will be totally rehabbed but I'm frame on that it's a couple of years we're in the midst of there's a couple of years mean five years down the road I can't answer that mayor except that unfortunately raising money is a an art and not a science and if we can raise the money early air it'll be soon there if not it will be later but what I'm trying to propose the council is a more palatable option in that if you deduct the $300,000 plus and use the insurance money for strategic patching you secure within reason those two roofs and so the buildings are restored there's also an issue that if you utterly and totally re-roof them now a few years down the road you're gonna make chopping holes in them for HVAC installation and other restorations so it's a yin and yang if there were cuts to be made that seemed to be the reasonable spot so you take the 300 plus thousand off to one point one six seven million then you add in the available funding of the State Office and the insurance eligible money that brings you the six hundred thousand dollar figure that seems to me to be the the the best option just as one member of the council

[1:21:13] you have a motion on that I'll make that motion second by Harry any public comments Diane Diane Bay's I'm the vice president of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and I did have one comment and concern on this issue while we appreciate everything that is available with the fort and what they do for visitors one of the part of the law of the hotel tax law is only 15% of law of the funds for hotel tax can be used for historic preservation and so I did have that to address and so I wanted to mention that because I don't know even though that is reserved that is something that needs to be determined about this there's a any other further public comment but no further public comment we'll take a vote all in favor of approving the 675 change anything the 15% does that change anything in our motion if I may believe that if you weren't you can direct us to go back and probably have Bob and Carl go out for bids on this and then that would come back to you for approval and once we have final cost estimates as well we would need to bring back in a budget a budget amendment with that and a funding plan all right I think what we need today is direction to do that and then to bring it back to you for final approval exactly the key there Mary is that you're giving us direction today but you're not authorizing the project today that authorization will need to come with a budget authorization and approval of bids and well they'll be that review we'll get with Theresa and make sure that we're using the funds appropriately okay thank you so we've included that conversation I'll put I'll pull my motion and then direct staff to do to do such ok next was the issue of the bill allure River stage as you know Council has been very gracious and

[1:23:22] giving us funds to go towards different improvements at the foster communications Coliseum and some improvements at the river stage which included new chairs and also some electrical connections to make it easier for sound boards being connected the Civic events Advisory Board has appointed a subcommittee to look at some additional improvements at the river stage we don't have cost estimates on those but again we're looking for a direction if if council is interested in looking at doing some of these maintenance related improvements at the river stage I think the river stage is one of the most incredible facilities that we have and I think that people continue to look at it as a great venue so I want to make sure that we support them approvement that we can afford to do to continue to make that river stage the great venue that it is there yes it gave me a list to read of possible renovation replacement items that they are talking about in considering renovate existing restrooms renovate ticket box office renovate concession stand dressing rooms replace old lighting add netting under the river stage for bird issues replace AC units replace movable back wall level entrance area for tour buses repaving parking lot adding concrete at both bottom gate entrances you wanted to make sure you knew that they were thinking about these ideas prioritizing these and discussing them for future council consideration their prioritization on any of that no they're working through that now is my understanding would it be appropriate for us to ask staff to come back with a prioritized list with cost estimates and then we can go from there

[1:25:24] then I would I would make that request as well on this okay any other direction or questions from City Council with none you have direction Gina now we're through with that one right yes okay so we'll move into item L update on sales tax revenue performance and compared with June of the same the same month in the prior year and we have hit the 1 million dollar mark for being over budget for revenue at 1 million $41,000 terrific we'll have some additional funds to put into street repairs of course and for you yes Lane do you have a question those who pay quarterly do we see a spike more than other months in January April July in October I know I pay my sales tax quarterly and I don't know how many other businesses do many play on a monthly basis yeah most most say on a monthly basis okay know if there's a known percentage of who pays quarterly and who pays monthly I don't know that offhand I could certainly bring that back next time I present you know if that would play a factor on just those four months that's just it would be his story so it would be the same thing every year right what an impact it one way or the other relative to how it's always and the only difference would be if there's a reason the way a month ends if it would be on a Sunday or Saturday still play a fiscal year of the spike in those rights I'm just wondering that I know overall it's the it's the same because you average it out it's those three months Payton one any further questions for Tina today on that you have one more slide here mayor just

[1:27:28] your sales text by industry as you call this lies a little behind because it takes some time to get the information from the comptroller but this is for the month of May of 2019 compared with May of 2018 and just showing you sales tax by industry have we had any good statistics on the impact of Amazon no but we do monitor those dot-com type sales tax remittances and they have steadily increased over the years we have been seeing those come in those probably since about 2015 or 2016 they steadily increase so it's we do we do monitor that okay questions or comments from Council with that that concludes our regular agenda today we are going to move into closed session executive session on the provision of government code title five open government ethics subtitle a open government chapter five five one Open Meetings subchapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings be open under the following sections a section five five 1.07 one to consult with attorney when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas disciplinary rules of professional conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter regarding water rights and contracts for Lake now's worthy B section five five 1.07 for a one to deliberate the appointment employment evaluation and reassignment duties discipline or dismissal of a public officer or employee regarding the annual evaluation of the city manager item C section 551 0.072 to deliberate the purchase exchange lease or value of real property if deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the governmental body in negotiations with a third person regarding freedmen Heineman s - 3 to 7 and winstone park addition with that we will take a break for closed session it's 10 o'clock now we'll be back by 11:15

[1:29:38] nineteen eleven nineteen four minutes late so sorry for that and with that there are no amounts of announcements to be made from our closed session so we will move on to nine B which is announcements in consideration of future agenda items do we have any Harry we've got another group of homeless that are up being underneath the overpass at fifth and Chadbourne several complaints from citizens over there about the citizens actually moving out from underneath the bridge to to do their business closer to where the street is saw the head conversation with the police chief and he indicated that if the citizens would call dispatch then he would get somebody out there but I'd like to see if there's not something else that we can do and get ahead of the curve on this one and find a possible solution before we get into the situation like we had a couple of years ago it's really and it's actually on both sides of the street so technically it's on one side of the street belongs to Lucy and the other side street belongs to my district but the bottom line is as I like try to alright any other announcements just one or two meetings we had to go John James was giving a presentation and he drew on a map of a corridor of like when we're out it would be 14 hour 27 through and where it goes north Italian I'd love to see that because a lot of people have thought that's 2105 and I said actually John drew that north of 20 105 and they didn't believe me so if we might had a map of the etj and where roads are going to go because of what he's anticipating with the census I think that'll be great one of the issues with that is because there have been no defined routes that have been approved and that's one of the reasons we wanted this text this HB 1079 approved so that we would have citizens

[1:31:41] input into the future routes and so at this point everything's kind of a guess at what it might be but there are no final routes determine on I 27 other than what is 87 today those frontage roads etc are not determined that will be with citizens input as well as mayor's councilman's except commissioners etc so he can do it but just to be sure we don't have it defined just what you said well let John put the big little disclaimer on it but I had a lot of calls and concerns from people that have business 105 and we you know we really it's not common sense to that stretch is probably going to be north of there and the same thing on I 14 there's a lot of it is defined but whether they choose to do one 90 as well as the route that we prefer or do both is not defined yet just to be sure okay with that we will I will ask for an adjournment move we adjourn and a second and let's take a vote on that see if there's any controversy no we have not had a semi okay so now it's three to two we're closed oh no we're journey thank you

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=g5ZRuCEzZ3A