San Angelo City Council 10-2-18

[0:00:00] if I could please ask that you all check your cell phones and make sure they're on vibrator on silent and with that said we are going to start off with our legislative prayer let us pray Heavenly Father thank you for this day father we ask for your guidance and wisdom on the decisions that we will be making today father thank you for the many blessings that you bestow on us daily father we ask that you watch over our first responders or military in our country father we ask these things in Jesus name Amen we will now have our pledges today we have Karis Sanchez and she's gonna lead us in prayer she's a third grader and she's homeschooled and we know she's going to do a great job today so let's turn around Texas flag [Applause] we will now do our proclamations and

[0:02:04] today we have one proclamation declaring October 22nd through 26 2018 as Red Ribbon Week do we have individuals here to come forward please use disorders particularly damaging to children and contribute to the three leading causes of death for teens accidents homicides and suicides it is imperative that visible unified prevention education efforts by the community be launched to eliminate the demand for drugs it is the goal of Red Ribbon Week and of the alcohol and drug abuse Council to concho Valley to involve families schools businesses churches law enforcement agencies and service organizations in all aspects of this campaign and to establish an atmosphere that supports awareness education and ongoing initiatives to prevent illegal drug use the Red Ribbon Week campaign promotes family and individual responsibilities for living healthy drug-free lifestyles without illegal drugs or the unlawful use of legal drugs and many activities are planned during Red Ribbon Week and Tom Green County therefore I Brenda Gunter mayor of the city of San Angelo Texas on behalf of the city council do hereby proclaim October 22nd through 26th 2018 as Red Ribbon Week in San Angelo Texas and call upon all citizens to support and increase community awareness and prevention efforts in our community first of all I want to thank everyone for being here and I'd like to thank mayor Gunther and the rest of the city council members for having us here my

[0:04:08] name is Lauren and I'm a part of the prevention team at a DAC so part of our job as prevention specialists is to go out into the community and educate youth and adults about the dangers of drug and alcohol use and so Red Ribbon Week is probably our busiest season out of the year and I remember Red Ribbon Week growing up as something where I got to wear pajamas to school and my hair crazy and wear funny socks but we go around and we educate communities on the importance of Red Ribbon Week and what it really means and it's honoring the DEA agent Kiki Camarena and his life and dedication to instilling and creating a drug-free community and so that's what we're going to be doing come October 22nd through the 26th and we just want to invite you to be a part of that we say prevention always starts at home and in the workplace so we would just like to encourage you to educate yourself on Red Ribbon Week and join us in the efforts to creating a jog free community thank you [Applause] we will now open the meeting for public

[0:06:16] comment issues or items that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time citizens should speak from the podium begin by stating their name and limit remarks to less than three minutes council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda the council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items we ask that all public comment be limited to three minutes thank you do we have any public comment today Carl please come forward appreciate the opportunity to be here with you this morning good morning my name is Carl Detlef superintendent of schools for San Angelo ISD it's a privilege to be here this morning and first I just want to acknowledge your spirit of service and your philanthropy that you have for our city so it is deeply appreciated and many times I think about the 15,000 wonderful souls that I certainly have responsibility over and then I think whoa you guys do that for a hundred thousand almost so I greatly appreciate the work you do for our city and it's a great partnership and that will continue in two and a half minutes or less I wanted to provide you a quick update on our November bond to referendum and proposal I will at the completion of my public comment I will provide you a packet of information in that you certainly have cost analysis economic impact and letters of endorsement from both community and Shannon Hospital as well as our chamber of commerce so I'll provide you that packet in just a moment but first I really want to highlight the student and that's our learners in the NCI city we have a learner profile basically our learner profile is how do we create communicators collaborators critical thinkers and creators we need students that not only will compete in West Texas but in a global marketplace and also compete against many of our competitors

[0:08:19] statewide as you know our athletic and academic teams travel to the Metroplex to conduct business and to compete and we are so we are competing more than just in our local region now our schools many of our schools are 40 to 90 years of age into a quick synopsis in 2008 we conducted a bond for 117 million that was based on a three hundred and thirty million dollar facility's assessment conducted by an outside firm so we chopped off 117 million of that in 2008 and we touched 11 schools now we are looking at phase two which will touch the remaining schools we have about 24 campuses so now we're looking at Phase two which will touch the remaining parts we have value engineered we have chiseled the bond after our two vote margin we have chiseled the bond down through value engineering we actually chiseled it down about fifteen million dollars however with the cost of inflation at five to eight percent a year we decided to move quickly and go back to the referendum as soon as possible so that's one of the reasons that we decided not to wait but to move quickly because on a 150 million dollar bond you're looking at you know 12 million inflation increase with with construction cost so we did that quickly we listened the feedback we heard we had an additional survey this summer the feedback said SAISD and Karl 148 million is a big number also 14 cent tax rate increase we don't like that second and thirdly a twenty nine million dollar gymnasium we are uncomfortable with that so we listened and we have separated the proposal to two propositions proposition a which is a hundred eleven million dollars focuses on the instructional spaces that we so deeply need in our in our community in our city proposition B is extra curricular spaces the significant item in proposition B is the gymnasium at Central High School and multi-purpose Center the current gymnasium at Central High School was

[0:10:21] built in 1958 currently we have three schools that were built in the 21st century out of twenty four and that's the three L's Lincoln Lamar and Lakeview all those facilities were built in the 21st century our other facilities are 40 to 90 years old we must adapt to meet the needs of our learners and quite frankly our learning spaces need to look more like Starbucks than a factory model that they're based on that many of us when we went to school you're sitting in rows and desk now we need classroom spaces that are conducive to collaboration we need digital drops we need tables that can move we need video monitors that are movable and accessible so the classroom space looks different doesn't mean we need a brand new facility much of the bond is just renovation of current facilities the 11 campuses that we touched Holloman would be a good sample Bradford would be a good sample a good example and Santa Rita would be a good example of older facilities that we have renovated to meet the needs of the kids as well as we all know school safety is on our mind two weeks after the last bond election we had the school shooting in Texas so we have an urgency to make sure that we have retrofitted as fast as we can with our current funds but we have an urgency certainly to create those controlled entry vestibules more perimeter fencing and create visibility lines with the front entry point at our schools and I'd be happy to entertain any questions and I'm not sure if I made my three minutes or went over but I'll hand to pack it out also thank you appreciate it any other public comment today mayor council Shane Kelton Director of Operations just want to remind everybody of the two upcoming townhall meetings that we have this week to just to discuss curbside the curbside recycling program tonight 6:00 p.m. at South Side

[0:12:26] South Side Baptist Church and then on Thursday night at Lincoln Middle School at 6:00 p.m. as well so just want to remind everybody to please come out and share your thoughts on the curbside recycling program yeah oh Southland I'm sorry we have further public comment morning mayor and council michael dane assistant city manager can I get Lisa Marley to make her way up to the front please married and counseled the Redskins win or something yeah she did you're in trouble Lisa recently announced her retirement and that's a tremendous blow to our management team I wanted you to be aware that we're gonna have a little reception to honor her service and kind of fuss over her on Monday October 15th from 3 to 5 in the East mezzanine at City Hall come and go reception come have some cake and punch but I also wanted to I also wanted to take a minute you know sometimes the issues we deal with are varied can be very difficult sometimes they're clear-cut and it's a matter of moving through those issues with dignity Lisa always brings her a-game she's a pro's Pro she's an active listener she gives honest advice sometimes it's painful or difficult for her to deliver and many times it's painful or difficult to hear those are all desirable qualities and an HR director but they are especially desirable qualities in a teammate and organization leader and she has definitely been all of those things so I wanted to take a minute to say thank you Lisa for all

[0:14:31] that you've done and and to invite you to come celebrate with us her service to the city thank you Marilyn had as well Lisa's lease has been an outstanding HR director we love you Lisa we're gonna miss you we thank you for all you've done for this community for our Syrah again we wish we could keep you here longer but again we do understand so again thank you for all you've done I have two things number one we don't have a proclamation but two this month October is Hispanic Heritage Month so we want to remind everybody that we will there will be many organizations celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month in the month of October also I wonder if someone is here from the city to talk about the recent virus at the animal shelter and closing of the dog park there I don't see anybody here but we are experiencing in the community a major outbreak or increase in parvo virus we were seeing it at the shelter and confirmed with local vets that that they are seeing it all so they they attribute it to the large amount of rain that we've had that it's brought the dormant virus to life is how it was expressed to me and so we stopped intake both to protect the animals that we have in the shelter and to protect outside animals from what from the virus which is in the shelter it's going to run through a cycle we're likely going to lose some animals it and the ones that are left are going to be adoptable but we don't want to aggravate that condition by bringing animals in who are infected or to infect animals which are

[0:16:34] not infected by bring so we wanted to take action the action was recommended by our vet and so we immediately took that action they tell me that the parvo virus exists on property and it can be picked up in places where animals regularly go and so that was the problem with the dog park with it could become an area where that is readily transmitted we have a time frame on when the dog park will be open again or when adoptions will be received the animal shelter activity will be reassessed in 14 days from last Friday and we will make a further determination then I have not heard how how long the dog park will be closed with what the animal shelter recommends as far as the once the virus I'm sure they're taking advice from the vets in town as far as women that's a safe time to Rio rule okay are recommending that pet owners control their pets try not to let them get out and if they have concerns about their pets health to seek the advice of their vet okay thank you we have further public comment good morning Mason Matthews of San Angelo firefighters association I just want to announce that our annual filled a boot campaign is gonna start tomorrow morning will be it's our 19th year doing it so we'll be at the four intersections that we have here in town on those now those in a second but we'll be there 7:30 a.m. through until 5:30 on Wednesday Thursday and Friday for s intersections or Aben Harris 29th and Bryan Johnson and Knickerbocker and Avenue in Sherwood Way just remind everyone be careful as they're approaching those intersections as we are kind of moving it out of traffic she'd have some safety vests on but everybody who's out there most everybody is all still on duty so if they catch a

[0:18:38] run they'll be shuffling through the intersection and get back on their unit to make their run so we raised about we collect about fifty five thousand dollars a year with MDA did right under that last year but we hand count all those funds and then every cent goes to the muscular dystrophy association and most of that money stays here in the concho Valley so and that goes to fund research projects the MDA does as well as send kids to a summer camp every year so we love being a part of it and just want to remind everybody it's starting tomorrow morning so what you're asking is everybody get their money ready the intersections don't be shocked the country standing there gets those dollars in the bucket we know we're in traffic I understand you know we're doing our best to get to you if we miss you you know we'll catch ya we'll be out there all three days so so you know if we miss you on Wednesday come back Thursday and we cruise your buddy give all three days every bit helps you know whether it's folding money or change we'll take it on so it goes to a good cause and we're really really proud to be a part of it so Mason and thank you all who participated in it's a great great effort any more public comment Joe thank you good morning mayor morning council mr. Pelham's whele I just wanted to give a quick quick comment on the city of Sonora I'm sure as all of you have heard in the news has suffered a disaster and so as we begin to clean up in Sonora hopefully this week we will be really gaining some ground we've had some some red tape to deal with obviously so we should start a a major cleanup effort very very quickly and I say that because I've had some questions on social media as well as in person that some you know recently at the last town hall meeting about where that waste is going and so I just want to inform council and staff that none of that waste will be come to San Angelo so we will be will be using other outlets that we have to where all that debris will not be coming to our

[0:20:39] landfill so I just want to let you all know that in case you do get some questions like I have progress to continue they suffered dramatically here further public comment with no further public comment we will go into our consent agenda I'm going to start with Tommy do you have anything you'd like to pull off a consent ma'am Tom no ma'am Gary yes item C an item e we will be pulling items C an item e off of the consent agenda may I have a motion to approve all other items on the consent agenda any public comment with no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor any opposed consent agenda approved with exception of item C an item e we will now move into item C consider proving items related to a contract with asset works LLC fleet management software one ratification of payment made between may 6 2017 and August 30th 2018 in amount of sixty thousand four hundred eighty and forty six cents and to continuation of GSA contract number gs3 503 176 for fleet management software to ask that works LLC budgeted annually not to increase more than five percent of the previous contract year price mr. Kramer you're on morning counsel Ryan Kramer fleet manager fleet services may I answer your questions mr. Thomas you know no one was on the no one when we approved this in 2014 none of the people that are sitting up here today was on that Council at that

[0:22:42] time so briefly want to talk about what that asset management software does and then I also wanted to want to find out how we got to the spot where we're paying sixty thousand dollars basically that wasn't approved by contractor originally so yes sir so as it works is the company name of the software and we use the software in our facility to do basically everything that we do all the way from service requests where individuals input information about I need this fixed on my car work orders in the shop we do fuel transactions parts billing we report on everything that we could imagine through this software and we do all of our accounting as far as charges and etc goes so this software is is very robust for us it does everything that our fleet needs it to do to be as efficient and equitable as possible and so that's how we that's really how we function in our division just a little background on how we got to the software in 2014 Council did originally approve this on consent in May of 2014 contract was signed and then we did amend at once because we had the vendor had left out a piece of our our needed software in the original quote and so we added that all still came in less than the original council approval of two hundred fifteen thousand dollars the first year costs were around two hundred two thousand dollars that was the complete implementation of the software and then we amended the contract dad about an additional ten thousand dollars so we were still under the two fifteen originally we began implementing in late 2000 2014 worked on it all the way through August to September of 2015 so it is about a year long process of building the software to our direct needs we put that in production at that time we added some different features including a GPS functionality integration fueling integration in May of 2017 which you might remember we use

[0:24:47] again the software for all of our daily operations both in our administrative staff in the office as well as our shop staff doing work orders so the the issue that we found recently we found a discrepancy between the background memo that was originally sent to Council may 6 2014 and the current wording in the contract and so when that discrepancy was found we submitted it to legal for their advice on how to move forward and basically that discrepancy says this on the original memo it says staff in the other information so it's kind of down low in in the ending part of the memo it says staff recommends authorization to execute a GS a contract between city Santangelo and asset works LLC for an initial 3-year contract term and so that discrepancy between the current contract which does indicate that it is an initial three-year contract term but then goes on to say that the contract will continue to renew automatically unless terminated appropriately as per the contract terms so that's where the confusion was mainly held was when the information was put in the background memo we used the language from the contract but perhaps we didn't get the second phrasing and so when when that was reviewed recently we said wait there might be an issue here submitted it to to our City Attorney's Office for review and they suggested that this was the corrective action to make up for what we what right you what there was spent that we shouldn't have without council approval comfortable with this actually I was sitting in the audience when we we discussed this four years ago and I came to the microphone and recommended that we do this because I used asset software fleet asset software at Goodyear so I appreciate the explanation I want we want to make sure that we're transparent so I wanted to get that out to the citizens so move to approve as few questions Harry first can you talk about the dollar savings that asset works has

[0:26:51] brought to the table sure what we can what we can easily see without doing calculations which I don't have in front of me at this time but what we can easily see through asset works is compared to what we had before and that so that's the biggest difference and we were using a software that our city still uses for financing and accounting and for the fleet side of it it just didn't it didn't do what we needed it to do for example if I was asked to run a report on fuel economy for our vehicles like I couldn't do that I could I could pull data and look at fuel consumption and do it outside of the software but I couldn't do it at a moment's notice any given information so pick the topic that's what we couldn't do to pull reporting to provide our divisions and those that asked the information we needed to properly maintain and repair a fleet so that's the biggest realm of what we needed since then we've also built into it into the software most of the aspects that we do in our division including our fuel transactions which is highly important to keep track of and see where they go and monitor those those fuel consumptions but we also do the other integrations including with our parts contractor and GPS and so from the wide view mayor I can't answer your question directly on the cost savings at this time but from the wide view all of those aspects that we do have become so much more efficient and possible where before they in a lot of cases weren't even possible now we can provide you and others with data as it relates to our fleet so perhaps we can have that on an agenda going forward so you can update us with all of that information absolutely and I would hope that going forward a contract wouldn't have three revisions that were missed or not put in or not understood that's a lot of changes in a contract for one purchase so thank you any other questions from Council would you like to make the motion listen to approve as presented

[0:28:54] okay do we have any public comment no public comment we will take a vote all in favor of approving item c1 and to say I consider approving tax increment reinvestment zone or tiers incentive funding for two private projects in the north tiers area for the properties located at 1102 north Chabert and 2412 north Chabert totaling 70 1881 and 58 cents John thank you john james director of planning and development services as you know the tax increment reinvestment zone has an incentive program that private property owners can apply for funding to improve their properties within the zone in this latest round we did not have enough funding available in the South area the zone and so we did not solicit incentive projects for the south but we did for the north we receive these two applications for incentives which the tears Board recommended approval of and so I'll briefly describe each of those the first is 1102 north north Chadbourne the Semana insurance they're requesting about fifty two thousand dollars we do require a 25% match so their match would be about seventeen thousand the summary of the work is demolishing and removing an existing parking area a new slab three new windows new awning some stonework facade work on the front of the building this is what it looks like today san angelo insurance and basically they just want to clean up the front facade do some improvements to the you know the physical nature of the facade and new signage and partly getting it right now if you noticed they have a lot of different signage this would clean it up and both improve the appearance but

[0:30:58] also make the front facade look much nicer the second project is the Skyway motel at 2412 North Chadbourne their funding request was for $18,000 6250 was their match from that basically it would be removing the existing concrete and asphalt and basically resurfacing the parking lot and then adding some landscaping along with the sprinkler system for the landscaping they pointed out that they have recently done quite a bit of internal work to the motel and so now they're just looking to improve the exterior as well so this is what it looks like today they would provide grass and some landscape bushes along that side of the building and then here's what the front looks like today they would resurface the parking lot and clean up the landscaping there as well is there any other remodeling work being done on the outside of the building not as part of this grant request this is all parking lot and escaping that first project what was the concrete work being done on it that's basically in this area here in the parking and then the front where the sidewalk is resurfacing that at one point there was a conversation that we would that tears would not approve concrete work slash parking lot work unless there was landscaping done as well well the the way the policy is worded is that we would not fund parking and paving work by itself but if it's part of a larger remodeling project then it is eligible oftentimes that has included in recent projects landscaping in a parking area oh that's not required

[0:33:02] all that's required is that it be part of a larger improvement and so in this case given that the area is currently all hardscape anyway this one there's really not much opportunity for for landscaping but again they are improving the facade of the building itself odds with flowers always looks good makes a big difference any further questions from Council I just wanted to say that it's gonna be very nice to see that Skyway Motel being worked on because it's been there forever all right with that do I have a motion to approve item ii was presented is there a public comment on item ii no public comment on item ii will take a vote all in favor of passing item ii say aye any opposed motion passes 7-0 with that we will move into our regular agenda item a second reading a public hearing of ordinance revising chapter to article 2.07 of the San Angelo Code of Ordinances to standardize provisions related to city boards and commissions I are you today Brian how are you thank you good morning so we normally we would put the second reading on consent but there were a couple of items that needed some attention so we've done that and I can either go through the slides or I can just explain it there they're pretty minor whichever one you would prefer but I'll start explaining it if you want to see the slides you see the slides it helps alright so all of most of this is all the exact same amendments to the boards this is you know why we're why we're doing it we're gonna bring the

[0:35:03] Park Commission at a future meeting then we talked about you know what the what the reasoning was was to move them to unified terms and kind of unify the boards in general we've removed some of the boards from from the ordinance that no longer are needed downtown development core Housing Authority keep it st. Angelo beautiful we were going to move remove the airport advisor I mean the airport zoning board from the ordinance but upon further investigation there's a need to leave that on the books question on the the ones that and I'm sure you said this before I just don't remember but on the slide before removing the housing authority why it's really an affiliated board it's not a board of the city and so our ordinance really it doesn't make sense for it to be codified in our code Ordinances because we don't actually have any impact or any payment mayor points all the board members but we don't have any oversight other than that thank you so there were some of the boards that we could not make changes to the term links and so we've unified as many of them as we could but there are state statutes that prohibit some of them being changed and there again are the terms of course we're trying to go from two three year three two year terms on most boards and so if you have any questions on that slide just let me know I'll give you a few seconds to read it Ryan for the for the public and those that may be watching remind everyone for the folks that are currently serving on a board or Commission what will their new term of service look like under these changes it one of their current term will be their their first term their current term will be their current term sorry everything in their service

[0:37:09] they are where they are and this ordinance won't affect where they have been pre you know they can serve two additional not to exceed the term limits but then they can serve two full additional it just depends on where they are in their current second term change which term they're in return trying to go by the spirit of it that you know the the council's desires to have kind of new blood rotating through the board so if they've been on there for a long time already then that's already counted toward their service and question Brian a real life example last year I made an appointment to the airport Advisory Board so currently that individual is on a four-year term so will that four-year term change to two-year term this is the first term so will they sit stay at four years because under the authority of this ordinance give us the ability to kind of make this work overtime so though the appointments that are already there they they exist on you know appointments that go forward will be two years okay just to clarify the way that the ordinance is written right now it says the first term of a member shall include the term held as of the date so that would have everyone starting over as a first term so if we want to change that I think that's what we had said was that it would be whatever term there end would be their term so if you're in your second term you're in your second term you don't get to go back and begin your first term right and so we just need to make that part of the motion when it's approved if that's I guess I'm a little bit slow this morning so my individual that's currently in a four-year term with that individual first term before years it

[0:39:15] would be two years two years all right and then the individual would have an additional two more terms so that they'll get you served yes thank you any other questions about terms we talked about the Zoning Board of Adjustment the need to have additional alternate members appointed by Mayor Pro Tem so that we can make sure we have quorum at those meetings because it's you know they need to meet when it's time to meet we talked about the qualifications to be on the tiers board to be in compliance with the state statute that there at least 18 years old and a resident of the county or adjacent County or own real property within the zone back on that because why would you use adjacent County that's the state statute okay yes right yeah we were just following the state statute as it's written Construction Board of Adjustment and appeals will change it from to two-year terms to two to three to here terms that can be a little bit dumb time meetings can be cancelled that the main change there is that meetings can be cancelled when there is no business currently they have to meet even if there's no business which is kind of odd so and it also moves relocates this where it's codified in the ordinances to be among the other boards because it was kind of off on its own on an island a water advisory board the meetings will be called as directed by Council I believe that's that's been with y'all's desire for that board as an advisory board all boards must approve new bylaws within six months - to make sure they're in in line with this ordinance and where as I was mentioning before we're authorized to stagger terms where it's appropriate for you know

[0:41:19] predominantly its on custody see where they're all on the exact same term so we're gonna be bringing back in February some appointments to to get that corrected do I have further questions for Brian then do I have a motion to approve this with the addition that current term you don't go back to your original term of appointment but you exist in your current term is there public comment yes sir mayor just quick question Joe Spano vice chair of Planning Commission I don't know if I missed it on the slide but I was wanting to know if there are any changes to the attendance level so I do know that there are there are a few boards where sometimes attendance is a problem and to me it it tends to hold up the business of the customer which is why we're here to serve especially on the Planning Commission so I wanted to know if any of those are being addressed if any of those are changed or if there's a possibility to have that type of discussion maybe not today but if other changes are coming down the line particularly on on the on the attendance I think that if you are going to make the commitment to be on the board and you should you should be showing up to meetings timely and not holding up progress for some folks and I think there might be a little appreciation in the community especially on the building side and planning side if we're not holding up any progress for folks not showing up to the meetings when they're supposed to be there so I just want to know if that's repeat we have there is an attendance issue on there and it says that's a good question and I think that is a desire of council as well and so we talked about that in depth the last time two-thirds attendance is required if you're not there for two-thirds of the of the meetings then it's an automatic resignation that's on a rolling twelve

[0:43:23] rolling as well okay any further public comment was no further public comment we will take a vote all in favor of approving item B say aye any opposed motion passes 7 0 we'll move on to item C no wait sorry B that was item a we just approved to correct me right so we are moving to item B which is the first public hearing and consideration of an ordinance amending chapter 11 utilities article 11 point o to water and sewer systems section 11 point o to 0.03 1 rates by amending the conservation discounts Allison you're on morning mayor council Allison's true be director of water utilities sorry clickers so today on the for this item we have the current conservation discount what is on the slide in front of you is what it says states in the ordinance currently we issue a 10% discount to those customers that use 3,000 gallons or less that 10% applies to the base rate plus their volumetric charge and this has been in implementation since July of 2006 so what do those 2018 discounts look like this is for a 5/8 inch standard residential customer these are what their discounts look like at the zero one thousand two thousand and three thousand gallons as you'll see as you get closer to that three thousand gallon mark the discount you are receiving is more than if you were to use say zero gallons or the one thousand gallons and I'm going to bring that up here in a minute but that's one issue that I see with this conservation discount is that as you use more up to that three thousand gallon threshold you receive more in a discount and so this is just

[0:45:29] an example to show that these customers that are receiving this discount are already receiving some of the lowest tiered rates for the residential class so for the one thousand gallon residential customer they are charged three dollars and thirty cents for that one thousand gallons and they receive a three dollar discount through this program and so effectively they are paying thirty cents for that one thousand gallons did that slide again the customer I did an example at the 1000 if you use one thousand gallons total for the month you're paying three dollars and thirty cents for that one thousand gallons that volumetric charge but your entire discount that you're receiving is three dollars so ultimately you're paying thirty cents for that 1,000 gallons what does it cost us per gallon to treat water what's our dollar per gallon of water I'm sorry mayor I don't have that in front of me and I don't want to misquote a number but I can't get that for you if everyone will please ask to be acknowledged before we speak I would appreciate it [Music] this six to 15,000 gallons right there people are paying five dollars and sixty-two says since a thousand per 1,000 gallons or one thousand gallon so what would be the discount for that person if they used over 3,000 gallons they are not getting a discount so the only I mean people does this effect in overall we pulled some numbers on average monthly average is about nine

[0:47:36] thousand customers so 25 percent of our customer base receive this when we in fact put this into place which I think you said was 2009 2006 2006 so when this was put into place had we yet created the new tier that was approved that we hired the consultants to do to help develop a water fund so this was done in 2006 when was the new rates created 2015 adopted into in January 1 2016 so when we did the study and created the new rates we didn't go back and look at the 2006 situation we'd already created so we did this but we didn't change this to accommodate this well they had tiered rates prior to the residential classes had tiered rates for a while and so it wasn't just the I guess it wasn't these new rates that the residential classes paying but we didn't mess with the conservation program itself just the rates so yes ma'am we did not go back and change the current conservation discount when we did the new rate plan so what would be the difference between the two in terms of what you would pay I'm not in 2006 we said you're gonna pay $3.30 30 cents per thousand gallons of water oh I I don't have what the two thousand six tiered rates are sorry I don't know if we've compared the discount of what it was in 2006 compared to what it is today sorry I did not bring how that conservation discount has evolved but I did bring that wind council adopted that in 2006 reading back through the minutes of

[0:49:40] those council meetings that they projected the total annual revenue or decrease to revenue for this program was going to be no more than a hundred and fifty thousand dollars I think it stayed under one hundred and fifty thousand for two years following that but ever since then we have exceeded that hundred and fifty thousand dollars in terms of issuing these discounts and so for instance in 2017 close to three hundred and eighty thousand dollars went back in discounts yes maybe gonna get to this question so if you are then I'll hold off are you are you gonna talk to us about possibly expanding these discounts this to me looks to be a pretty small focus the the residential folks were we haven't yes sir so one of my main goals is not just to get rid of this conservation discount and then not do anything in its replacement I'd like to see a more robust conservation program I think we target a very small section of our residential customers and we don't target our commercial or industrial institutions schools college campuses we don't offer any conservation programs to those and I think it's also important to note that for a family of three or more it is almost impossible to use three thousand gallons or less and those individuals and those families are doing means of conservation but yet there's no program that they can apply for so I do have a future slide that kind of shows all the and maybe not all is not the right word but a host of conservation programs that we can look into and that we could also target other industries commercial even enhance our residential conservation program but I do it wasn't my intention just to take this away and not replace it with something in the future but I do think that we can target some other areas and enhance our conservation

[0:51:45] efforts real quick I'll get to that second Harry had a question oh good comment sir and you probably going to get to this based on my conversation with you I would like to see us really not do this take away this conservation thing right now I get citizens that that use this 3,000 gallons or less that are concerned they're on fixed income I'd like to wait until we put this more robust conservation program completely in place and you take this and roll it into that at the same time so I think in less and less weaken unless you can and can dispel some of whatever may be out there from these citizens that I would like to weigh down this portion of it until we make a bubble let's see the whole presentation yeah keep going Allison real quick to finish up this slide while we do have some customers in this 3,000 gallon or less usage category that are truly conserving I'm not going to deny that they are are not conserving there are still some of these credits being issues particularly to realtor's and to Home Builders that basically it's because it's a vacant home they have it on the market they have services in their name so that you know when they go to show a home or as they're building a home but it's just because the home is vacant but these it's a residential service and they are receiving these credits as well so there are not only people living in their homes that are conserving but there are also other conservation discounts going to those that aren't truly in the act of conservation ma'am yes Billy Allison on that slide that says conservation is not the reason that these credits are being awarded is that what you just described to us is home for instance okay thank you so these are just a as I said a host of the

[0:53:49] different programs that we could look at in terms of implementing these could adapt not only to residential customers but also our commercial customers I think it's important to note that some of our schools and those type of things are some of our largest users and so when we ask them to conserve or they can apply for a program that saves a little bit there are small percentage is a much larger volume in the grand scheme of things so we may get more bang for our buck in terms of commercial customer conservation programs and just enhancing our residential customers to be able to get the homes that have more people in them three or four families that we can ultimately make a bigger impact on who can receive and who can apply for conservation programs so with that I do have the recommendation for this ordinance to be removed but we are open to keeping this one in place until another program is implemented or whatever the council's desire is I don't have specific details on all these conservation programs and but it will be happy to look at whatever ones y'all would like to see and with that I'll take any questions so if we're to go back and I want to look at once again it how little one is paying for mine for the water which water is one of our most precious resources that we have we can't have a great city if we don't have a quantity of water water cost money to go find water costs money to bring into town we got to have water so talk about this slide again yes so in essence the this class is already receiving or this user of 3,000 gallons or less is already receiving the lowest rates that we offer in this if I had the commercial class and

[0:55:51] those up on the screen this still is the lowest per thousand gallon charge that we have in our in our rate structure and so they are already incentivize basically with that lower rate and they're being further discounted for with this program so how many people do we have that use 1000 gallons or 1000 gallons or less the numbers we pulled I think that the let me go back to this so there's four categories that can ultimately apply for the discount they're pretty split evenly I'm not gonna say it's a 25% all the way down but for rough numbers it is so with and 25% of 9,000 customers Michael's good at mental math so when you look at the 1,000 2,000 3,000 the combination of those is the nine thousand people or nine thousand is the total for all those three of our the four yes so it'd be 25% of roughly would be in the in each of those categories and what are some of our explain what we use the water fund for so a large percentage of it goes to the operation and maintenance of our system debt service is another very large portion of the water fund we do have very large capital expenditures that we have to pay even before a customer pays this 3 dollars and 30 cents for that first 1,000 gallons we still have a tremendous if not millions of dollars of expense that it costs just to get the water to the treatment facility itself let alone treat it the capital and pumping expenses to get it to the customer so that in is in essence why the base charge is charged to customers because there's a lot of costs

[0:57:53] before we even drew deliver a drop of water to that customer but ultimately we pay for everything from old debt to future water supply sources and those type of things with the water fun all right move forward on a couple of slides all right here so when you go back and look at the minutes from the old meetings the minutes indicated that we thought at that point time that the maximum amount of dollars that we would be giving back to water customers would be a hundred and fifty thousand dollars and now we're up to three hundred and seventy eight thousand dollars and 2018 is just the January through July numbers so that's going to exceed 400,000 perhaps yes because we do see this discount obviously as we go into the winter months people aren't using their irrigation system or doing outdoor watering we do see more people get this conservation discount so we need to be concerned about what was anticipated as an expense versus what is the reality of that program and the cost I think for that cost of four hundred thousand dollars you could look at doing you could target different things you could do several of these programs one program it just depends on what Scholz desire is for conservation programs and what if you do want to do just residential class or commercial classes but for $400,000 we could target several of these programs I know we can't be in the business of allowing fees of only 30 cents for a thousand gallons of water I know that number doesn't work financially yes ma'am yeah yes Billy may I ask yes please Allison I think several questions but could you go to

[0:59:57] the previous slide in 2018 of that two hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars is there any way to analyze how much of that went to people who only pay 30 cents per gallon thousand gallons of water is there any way to determine that do you have that mic well I guess my concern is exactly what Harry said if we eliminate we just came off of a drought level and we go into proposing that we eliminate the conservation credit I think that sends an unclear message to our citizens and so I would like to know if you know people who only paying 30 cents a gallon if that equates to $400,000 are their citizens who are actually working you know to to conserve in some level or if you know do you understand what I'm saying is if you want to know the program's working based off or are they just naturally going to use a thousand gallons or are they conserving to only use a valid way exactly and I you know I would kind of like to know that the other thing is you mentioned I think your word was a robust a more robust conservation plan how long do we think that would take and why couldn't we leave leave the you know the current system the way it is quickly work toward this more robust conservation plan instead of taking something away because I think you know it's just the perception when you're giving me a conservation credit and then you want to take it away that you're taking something away from me and we sometimes as citizens as laypeople miss a bigger picture of the point that the mayor was making that you

[1:02:03] know originally we thought we'd only be paying 150 thousand dollars a year and now we're up to four hundred thousand dollars a year and you know that's really not good math for us for us as a city that's trying to be financially conservative but at the same time I think we have to take into account the perceptions the perspective that our citizens may have mr. Witt I'd like to answer one of those questions and kind of give you guys some some statistics to help you understand some of the things that we're looking at Lance Overstreet assistant director water utilities the average person uses when you're looking at the average and you're determining what your usage is and how much water you need the average person uses 100 gallons a day in a month's time one person on average uses 3000 gallons in a month and so the way the current program is set up is it doesn't really provide for conservation because it's saying if you're a single person and you're using the average amount you're gonna get the discount no matter what what we also find is that even on someone who is being very conservative in their usage and they can cut that down to 50% to where you're only using 1,500 gallons per month that's still not under a thousand gallon what we're really seeing in some of this stuff and the statistics that we're finding is that the the ones who were under those lower amounts may not really be conserving it may just be from lack of usage so say homes around the lake where someone comes in for a weekend and they use it for one weekend a month they're getting the discount just because it's empty there's no usage we're also seeing where empty houses they may have a meter on it they're giving the discounts because there is no usage Lance if I could mayor I was surprised to find that I received a discount we were changing houses we had sold a house and left the utilities on so the buyers could do what they thought

[1:04:05] they needed to do we received a conservation credit one month we didn't do any active conserving we weren't doing anything special to reduce the amount of water we use we simply left the account on so the buyers could do what they needed to do as they were moving in and and so we received that credit I that hit the nail right on the head for me I was really hadn't thought about it in those terms but we hadn't done any act of conserving and yet the city was giving us a credit for that month and so there's a disconnect between the financial incentive and the behavioral changes that you're seeking and what we're seeing with this program for all the council is is that say you have a family of four a family of four in a month on average uses 12,000 gallons if you take a family and they get very proactive and they do you know they have rain barrels they go into water conservation with all of the units in their house they go through a very large robust system with maybe using gray water say they can get their users down to 50 gallons they can cut it in half 50 gallons per person they're at 6,000 gallons per month they're not going to receive a credit and so the problem that we're looking at in this whole program is that the program is not really functioning as is designed to do which is to promote conservation now when we looked at this we also considered the whole idea of okay what if you have somebody on a fixed income or we have a low income individual and it's just by nature they're able to take advantage of this well if that's the case then we need to have a program that that helps a low income person not necessarily a conservation program that's also so really we're talking about two different programs that may need to be looked at not necessarily one that's not working this just happens to be functioning in both capacities and so from from the water utility side we're asking you guys to repeal this because

[1:06:08] we're looking at a couple of different programs both of which need to be revamped and we looked at so that way they actually function as they're intended if if we are looking at something for a reduced income or a fixed income then we need to have a program that actually functions for that and not just because of you have a thousand gallons or two thousand gallons or whatever the case is and if we have a conservation program we need to have one that actually promotes conservation globally on all levels not necessarily just because if the house is empty or just because it's one person who happens to be using the average daily use and they're getting a discount for not conserving an ill-conceived program and even the way the program is designed it's designed because it's a street 10% break if you use 3000 gallons you get more back than if you used 1,000 gallons so we have a program that's not functioning and that is why we're asking you guys to consider repealing it is so that we can actually get a conservation program that is functioning and working and if you guys direct us to and we need to look at a low-income credit then we can get a program that actually functions and does that as well Lane did you have a question or comment yes Hugh ants are part of it about the right structure and the low income aspect of it because on that slide for the conservation items I did not see anything that could be financially feasible for a low-income person they're not gonna go through and convert their house to gray water or get rainwater harvesting because that can be expensive maybe the the commodes and the flappers that might be financially feasible but on a $90 toilet about three years for them to pay off so in parts of these programs would be to ultimately give a larger rebate say a fifty sixty if not ninety dollar rebate for that toilet replacement program so we would still make sure that it is mindful of the dollars that that individual is

[1:08:12] investing in conservation and would hopefully be enough of a reward that it actually those customers want to go out and replace those old inefficient toilets with these are just some of the ideas that correct the entire concept of all ideas that could be brought forward these or just the initial ideas so we as a council have a lot of opportunity and a lot of ability to add more into these conservation programs I just see when you go through the statistics and you go through the analysis of what that program did its ill-conceived some agreements that we need to take a look at this but I'm also in agreeance at the time with Billy and Harry that needed we need to keep this on until we can come back and do a more structured system for this we can do that we can change the effective date that it doesn't go the current conservation discount program doesn't go away until another servation program is adopted by the City Council because I don't want its replacement I don't want to get away from the discount of giving to the customers for conserving but I also need to ask a question which I'll we're talking about the lake houses or the vacant homes even is the base rate of 2668 is that is the price to clean that water in that or the volumetric charge is the volumetric charge of just your profit what you're selling to the customer or is that out of that is what the treatment level is so you're asking does the base charge include treatment or does it the base charge includes some level of treatment because the plant the water treatment plant itself is a very large capital expense delivering water to that facility though like I talked about earlier getting water even without it going into the home itself the utility has a vast expense in getting that water to the treatment facility treating it so some of those base charges do come with the

[1:10:17] treatment cost itself the reason you also get some of these there as you go up in the tiered gallons and they get more expensive it's because we have two sized pipelines for that peak demand so irrigation use being one of those peak demands so we have to oversize distribution systems for those individuals that use above-average volumes of water during the month and so those the over sizing of mains and those type of things in the capital cost invested with those some is why some of these tiered rates are higher - as you use more water other question for the vacant homes in the second homes at the lake in my opinion and you have to run the numbers you're not going to have them but you're actually making more money because you're not delivering water to those facilities and you're still paying the base rate of 2668 you are still delivering some amount of water to that facility you're delivering it that tap into that meter right ready for its use but it's shared with the other clients on that Street also if it's not going through their meter pushing that volume of water into the distribution system correct you know councilman you raise a good point is at what profitability exists at what volume levels and I don't think that they've brought this forward with that philosophy in mind they're just saying that there was really nobody there conserving nobody avoiding the use of water they simply weren't there so there was no behavioral change that's why you raised a good how much the profitability is that's a good point that I couldn't answer it how profitable are you at at varying levels of usage but it goes back to the cost of producing water and delivering water and that's very important well we don't have the detail I think the last time we talked about costs to treat water we were closer to $2 we were we've never

[1:12:24] been anywhere near 30 cents so we were talking about 30 cents for that first thousand when when you asked that question it's much more than 30 cents to treat a thousand gallons of water we certainly need to create a program that incentivizes conservation and this program does not do that currently it's a great program for just existence and I think we have to be pretty aggressive about what we do wan creating a conservation program that truly incentivizes conservation number one and number two we have to deal with the realism of the need to drill more Wells a need for water treatment plant a need a huge amount of dollars needed to ensure we have water up to 2070 and so with that conversation we need to conserve but we also need to make sure we are charging the right dollar amount for conservation we have great needs Lentz Overstreet again mr. Carter if I can can kind of give you an idea of the base charge real quick what we have to also realize is that regardless of whether we are supplying water at that particular time to that particular house is that there is an infrastructure that has to be supported as well and so when the water demand actually happens there has to be an infrastructure in place and so a lot of that base charge is not just supporting the actual the function of the plants but it's also to prolonging the life of the infrastructure the aging infrastructure the all those other investments that have to happen in a capital and environment which is going to be a cost whether there is a usage or not and so the reality of it is the plant has to actually function regardless of how much it is actually putting out the pipeline has to be able to pull water into that plant the distribution system has to be able to distribute it and so the base

[1:14:27] charges are actually set oftentimes to help out with those capital costs and the maintenance of all that system and so whether there is a usage or not those things still have to be in place so that way when the usage does occur it's functional right and that's what I was asking because you're still paying for that you're still paying for that whether you use the water or not that it that is still being paid through the 2668 so that doesn't go away the infrastructure is still getting paid for and also with these other conservation discounts these are long-term benefit so once you replace that toilet that toilet it no longer flushes seven or eight gallons any more and flushes the 1.7 or two gallons of flush and so you see that savings from the implementation of that new installation rainwater harvesting these are long-term benefits and conservation mechanisms whereas with the current program you could conserve one month and then not conserve the next you could you can bounce back and forth in terms of if you want to conserve and receive the discount or if you don't and so you don't have that long-term benefit that some of these programs do such as zero escaping and we know that a lot of San Angelo has implemented these conservation methods and so maybe we can incentivize even more people to do so from what I think I understand that council does not council wants to add new ideas to the conservation programs and perhaps continue with the existing one until we have some better numbers but meanwhile that time frame that we're talking about could be months down the road before we come back with some real numbers we want to bring a presentation back that would talk about residential commercial and what all the different options all these options plus whatever else y'all would like to direct us to do

[1:16:29] in more detail all right just a minute Harry has a comment or question it's kind of a follow up I think we need to get to this robust increased conservation programs but I'll have to make this comment some of those individuals that are on fixed income that depend on this this conservation rebate that we're giving them today can't afford to put some of these things in place they're going to have to have some help put in a new new toilet or clothes washer and do some of these other things that are that you're talking about they can't just go out and do the gray water so we're going to have to figure out as we talk about these conservation programs who these people are and maybe take a look with Bob Collison in that particular group to see if there's a way that we can help them to this conservation but I think we need to make sure that we don't take away something today that that they depend on until we can get to this spot are you had a comment a question for Teresa Teresa to move this item along the way it's you know worded on our agenda here how would we need to word the motion because I agree with what's been said up here and let's leave this in place for now let's have the staff come back to us with a much more comprehensive program what's what's the best way to word that motion do you want to go ahead and prove it on first reading but make it not effective until such time a new programs adopted or do you want to just bring it back at a future meeting Dave I'll say personally I'm okay to make it effective when another program comes back if the majority of council says no we don't want to do that that's okay too but you know let's do it let's let's leave this alone for now and then bring have them bring it back and if the if the if we need to just have it approved at that time okay well again I'm not not firm one way or the other on that okay I

[1:18:34] think Lucy has a comment and so does Tom so let's start with Lucy when you say that they you had you would be looking at two different programs which is one is for reduced and fixed income people so that's something that you're willing to look at I guess so I have just up on the side in front of me conservation programs but if y'all are wanting to look at some sort of low income program that that I think could be a separate discussion but also we would need to talk about the funding of that as well but I think that what we're saying is that this program in place now is in some of these cases a mixture of both it's a single person low income elderly living by their themselves they are not so much in the act of conservation but by essence of their use getting this conservation discount so I think we need to look at a conservation program itself particularly but if the council would like us to look at a low income in removing this program we can look at that as well Allison on the zero gallons level there's 2300 if I mean if we say there's 2300 among these nine thousand would those be houses that are just up for sale I mean they could be that or they could be the user that hasn't used up to that 1000 gallon mark to be pretty much yes that level needs to go I'm saying as we move forward that level here is probably not affect anybody here I'm saying today that level probably needs to disappear I have further comments Lane do you have a question one question on your statement did you say that a toilets were flushing it did you say eight I don't eyelets older toilets I think we're about three the new ones are about 1.6 okay yeah I don't but they are considerably more in

[1:20:40] terms of what they are today do we gallon savings per flush and dividing it into the thousand gallons usage and that's 714 flushes well the reality is it's process analysis on how much that toilets costing versus the $3.30 ill-conceived program it needs to be re-evaluated and work needs to be done and that work is going to be multi-tiered at the same point time what we have to do and I remind everybody we got a lot of water needs and expenses going forward a lot of water expensive needs going forward so whatever program that we do we need to make sure we understand the short and long term impact to water and our ability to pay debt service at the same point in time not punishing people for conserving or not having this go forward so it's multi-tiered and I think this deserves a lot more conversation I believe that there's a lot of work to be done here and we'll bring those back to you if I could go back to Tommy's question I mean the way you would pose such a motion would be to motion to a previous presented with the effective date being at such time Council adopts a new program I wouldn't make that as a motion with the city attorney just want to repeat that Teresa you're gonna approve on first reading as presented with the effective date being at such time the council approves a new water conservation program so moved there a second second that public comment counsel Steve Hampton well I heard on the news last night there were

[1:22:44] three inches over our average rainfall why we have we have a bill before us it's going to hurt people I agree with Harry and and billion and Lane they are this needs to be considered this proposal in this in this statement is saying that it's in the budget but we don't have to spend it I think this is a long way I think it ought to be just voted down and wait until the programs in place you don't know how long it's going to take also you're right your water bill is also affecting your rain water bill I think they're connected at the West the rain water bill the storm water misters don't work I'm white or not rain water okay thank you please come forward hi I am Lynette Lucas and I've here just because I'm a taxpayer and I I think there should be a study on flushing toilets here I've heard a lot on on the other side of it that we need what I think for one thing I'm gonna say that we should not be incentivizing we should be not have a program that tells people they have to do anything that we can encourage for conservation and I think people are really open to that but I've also heard people say that if the the toilets that flushed and had more water and the older it worked the first time other the newer ones they flushed three or four times so I mean there's probably gotta be a study on that that if I uses the same amount or more water but I just would please do not make a program that is going to put any burden on the taxpayers I think we ought to move

[1:24:48] beyond the toilet conversation I think there were many other options on there there's great consideration I think focusing on the toilet limited in concept and previously that was just a weird thing because you try to put the rocks and then the rocks are a problem and then weeds grow up in the rocks and then that's a problem and it just it's not really some of these things are not wonderful solutions and but I think encouraging people more than making it a program that they get certain amount of money if they do that is not the best way to go about it thank you further public comment I think one of the things you state your name sorry I'm Joe Hyde I think one of the things that hadn't been discussed here before y'all know about raising basically raising water rates on people about four hundred thousand dollars a years that I just pulled up the budget for the water department in 2016 your actual it's about 3.8 million dollars in revenue and the latest I have on the budget Mike was 4.2 million dollars was estimated for FY 18 so that's like a half a million we have four hundred thousand fifteen half-million dollar it's not the whole water fund you're looking at some piece of the water fund it says water utilities administration anyway that's that's what I would look at I would look at how much more is the water apartment making or the water enterprise fund making and consider that because there's old I mean there's a lot of I guess discontent about you know the water rates and how much water water

[1:26:51] bills actually are that's you move the microphone down a bit Anna so we can hear you thank you Anna bartosh and I listened a few weeks ago when y'all were spending two million trying to cover stuff but now we have another big need for water I remember when this was instituted in 2006 I wondered oh I'd like to know what the water rates were then and what they are now because when this was instituted the rates went I magically went straight up so if we Institute another program or the water rates going to be increased again I also agree with Lynette on those low water toilets you do flush more than once so the net result I don't believe is conservation and the next thing I have is how are you going to determine who's conserving you want a program for those that conserve how are you going to monitor that I mean we conserve and we just got in the mail we get a little rebate but I don't know how are you going to monitor conservation from house to house to house I think the comments are well made in and I don't know how we can do that I don't know that it's just as we didn't know it go up to $400,000 when we projected 150,000 dollars so in my mind I think that we we certainly have a motion on the floor we have a second on the floor we've had public comment Alison do you have another comment before I make it on any other comment just available for any other questions I truly believe that there needs to I think if we wait until we find a lot of other options and do an analysis on it could be a year

[1:28:55] it could be longer and I think we need to make sure we understand what we're doing here I do not in any way want to impact low-income families they're an important part of this city they're important part of the decision-making in terms of policies that we have but I also know that in long term we've got about a hundred and twenty million dollars out there that we're going to need to find money for for water and so with the whole idea that yes water rates have gone up and the idea with the water rates was to create some additional funding so we can have bonds or we can pay for debt for the hundred and twenty million dollars that's going to come up pretty soon we can't have this conversation in a very narrow window when we have this conversation about rates conservation discounts we need to have the conversation about the future needs of water otherwise Peter and Paul are not in the same room and they need to be in the same room we have this conversation we've got a lot of water needs and I know this no city exists without great water supply I think you said it very well we did implement of course our water rate fees and that's to address of course replenishing replenishing a fund balance that I have been completely depleted to make sure that we have the money necessary to replace current infrastructure you know that mirror is to address future projects as well so I've heard a lot about you're building up a fund balance of course we're going to fund balance so it's the responsible thing to do to make sure that we can't pay for all our needs and of course one of our biggest needs is to address that future project Mary you mentioned having something up to 50 years we need to get that addressed that's something that City Council is addressing at this point but that money has to be either I would say the find that if we do nothing else my recommendation is one thing look at the low-income families in this city and

[1:31:00] look at what their needs are relative to the pricing of water with the exception of that and that's an important very important part I'm not sure we should be moving forward on the current program it doesn't it was ill-conceived it's not conserving water but we want to take into consideration the low-income families and we do not want to punish anybody and make them feel like they can't afford water that would be irresponsible on our part but I also don't want to wait a year to come up with the analysis on all those ideas at the same point in time we're trying to make some decisions about water needs and paying for our water needs so with that I'm not comfortable voting positively on the motion on the floor because I think it doesn't allow us an immediate plan of action I think it's it's do we need a amend it to include a date by which it needs to come back to us I think we need to review the I think the motion could be that what we want to do in a very short window 60 days is come up with a game plan for low-income families but does that include the entire comprehensive options for I mean getting the answers to all those comprehensive things and then way an A and then B and then C then D and E and thinking we have a realistic approach to what those dollars are going to be I think is unrealistic I just think it's unrealistic look how wrong we were on this program really wrong on the numbers so I want us to address an opportunity to look at low income families and address those needs with exception of that I think we need to be realistic about what we're doing here again I'm not I'm not hard over about this motion I was trying to move

[1:33:04] us along here so I'm not interested in moving us along if we don't have a game plan going forward because water no city survives without water and the offense to secure our future with water I think I think staff has probably got I think they've got the message I would assume y'all have gotten the message from the discussion I think so counsel and I think from from our standpoint I think if we move forward with whatever motion you guys make we just need to be very clear as to what direction we need to if we need to look at to two separate programs do we have to have both programs come back before this changes do you need one before the other one I think also to Alison mentioned the funding of this if we run two separate programs we have two different fundings that has not been considered into our current rate plans and that's something that we're gonna need some direction from Council which one is the higher priority the conservation or the low income and if we bring back the low income does that mean the conservation goes away until that plan becomes back we just need some some direction from you guys as to what your priority is in terms of those two programs what timeline you guys would like to see and then also - we're gonna need to re-evaluate our current rate structure for this next year if we are going to be implementing two programs separately within that same year as to how that impacts everything I think we have to be very cautious about where how we're moving forward and I remind everyone wasn't too long ago when we had to boil water for two days and everybody had to go out and buy water what were you paying for a gallon of water then I'm at a loss here folks my brain is not engaged here with what really what we need do i I'm thinking you all have the message pretty clearly that we are concerned with several things with the conservation I think that I think that's

[1:35:06] to me that's clear with with making sure those the those that struggle to pay their bills are also considered I think you also are hearing that we need to do this in a timely manner so whatever we need to do to move this along you know is what I'm willing to do so I'm willing to rescind my motion and start over so I'll rescind the motion and somebody else that's got far better words than me makes the motion I don't know how to make the motion do we have to even have a motion we do need a motion to approve today for the first reading and then it could be to postpone it until Alison's ready to bring back the study just whatever you want to move forward with but we do need a motion for this first reading well the motion I think that we want is we don't support this motion and that we want to have further information and statistics brought forward before we consider any motion and we need to start I believe in a this is a very long motion isn't it so sorry I think you could just let's postpone it and come back with a lot more facts and information and statistics because we can't afford to put a program into place that we project cost 150,000 dollars and it's now $400,000 we have 120 million dollars worth of water needs going forward for the future of San Angelo to take us to 2070 or beyond so let's not make a short-sighted motion and take a vote when there's a lot more information necessary I thought that was my motion was doing but obviously well we had a great discussion and I think everybody for your input and I think the citizens for coming forward with your input there's a lot more consideration and information needed we're making a motion to postpone yes so do we want to give a date certain by which the information

[1:37:08] comes back to us 60 days 90 days what kind of time frame is saying we haven't gotten into the discussion of the low income side program we've been more focused on the conservation program so I do have more detail on those type of programs so I would need some more time to research and do some analysis on the low income and get with Bob solace and those type of groups to get their input and so I we will work on this as expeditiously as possible but I don't have a timeframe exactly I could bring conservation Grimm's back to you just to discuss those in kind of the cost of implementation of those type of programs pretty quickly sixty days within sixty days I could bring forth information on the ones that I had did have on the slide and then always get input from y'all regarding other ones but for the low-income one I do need to do some more research on that one and see what kind of leg work is involved with that Tommy you had made a motion that or made a comment about the one thousand gallons in under the 2300 people that effects I'm just worried about the gap we have some people here that actually are very dependent upon this which surprised me I'm just worried about the gap right there yes Billy um I just wonder if we couldn't make a motion to postpone this without putting a time limit on it because I think Allyson and Lance understand the the need for us to move very quickly on this but I don't want to add more pressure to them to say give us something in 60 days and I'm sure she and Lance are gonna be working on this and they may come back

[1:39:10] you know before that so I hate to put a limit I would just like to make a motion that we postpone a vote on item B today I think we just said that we weren't going to take a vote on it and based off of their ability to put together information they'll come back to us when they're ready with information I thought you you said we had to have a motion I'm making that motion is there a third and fourth fifth and sixth okay any more okay with that motion to postpone and a second do we have further public comment I'm Lynnette Lucas and just a quick I just wanted to know how you're gonna define low income what what what do you consider low income that would be a huge question in this and thank you all for your time Alison and those are the exact type of questions that I don't have the answer to and that will revolve around doing a lot more research on that and so that is something that we'll be looking at very closely okay thank you and I'm sure there's some statistics out there that you very well define what low income is and particularly in this city so there's a source for that absolutely yeah Bob where are you Bob thanks all right with that we are going to move into the first reading and public hearing all right all in favor say aye motion passes 7 0 all right Lane needs to work on his potty questions for that I think we had all of the toilet conversations we need today okay items Z first reading the public hearing of an ordinance amending chapter four article 4.03 to amend sections point 4.0 3.3 2 and

[1:41:16] 4.0 3.3 3 and chapter four article 4.04 to adopt the 2015 editions of the International residential code international plumbing code International Mechanical Code International fuel gas code International Energy Conservation code international existing Building Code and the 2014 national electric code you're on owl thank you good morning mayor councilmembers mr. fellows really my name is al Torres I'm the construction manager for the city of San Angelo but for the previous nine years before that I was the building official which is why I'm bringing this forward I do have our current building official tardy camp here with me she and her staff will be responsible for enforcing these so if questions come up during the presentation she may come up and help me answer the so currently as you probably know we have these these are the codes that we currently have adopted a year and a half ago we move forward with the 2015 International Building Code which is a Commercial Code and the International Fire Code the remainder of the codes we're still under the 2009 codes those those 2009 codes were adopted back in 2010 with a exception of the Electric Code which is 2008 The Electric Code is always one year behind the other codes or one year head however you look at it the way we look at these codes the International Code Council is an international organization that puts out a model code basically they look at the the the codes and they have committees and look at lawsuits and look at you know have meetings all over the country and they put out these model codes that they they're just recommendations cities municipalities we have to look at those model codes and determine whether those codes are right for us or whether we need to make amendments here and there based on our local business practices so what that's what we've done so we form committees to discuss the significant

[1:43:18] changes we had the 2009 code that we had adopted since then we had the 2012 version of the model codes and there were a lot of changes to in that version and then now we have the 2015 so we've had two sets of code changes that we we had to look at so this has been lengthy process so those committees we we sent those out to architects engineers real estate agents contractors the general public we've had a lot of meetings over the last couple of years we had presentations to the development task force which is the development committee or a development community we meet every couple of months and so basically we took all of the input and information to put together this list that we've done we've got now so essentially we have two sets of amendments the first section is amendments to chapter 4.0 3 which is basically just housekeeping rules that are local to San Angelo and the only two changes we're recommending there are adding plumbing contractors to occupations that are required to get a to register a couple years ago plumbing contractors state law passed or the state passed a law that said we could no longer charge plumbing contractors a fee to register somehow their name was deleted from the list of contractors they had to register or so we're just putting that back in contract your plumbers are just like any other contract that they have to register they're just not required to pay a fee to do so this year the state passed another law essentially saying the same thing about electricians electricians are required to register but they do not pay a fee so we're adding them to the list of occupations that are excluded from paying a fee and then the next section is the the code section which is chapter 4.04 that's what we're deleting its entirety and replacing so basically I'm gonna take these one at a time and just kind of briefly go through what the major changes are in each of these are

[1:45:21] and then we'll go back and ask questions so the International residential code this is of course the code that regulates housing so we adopted the residential 2015 residential code its entirety except for chapters 34 to 43 these are the electrical chapters and we exempted those because we'd we don't adopt the International Eliska code we adopt the National Electric Code so so there's no confusion we exempt these electrical chapters because we have an electrical code that we adopt already we also exempted appendices ABC if il MD and P these are appendices that really don't have any to do with with us here they're the same appendices that were exempted in the last code so we just continue that we exempted in 1101 point fourteen requiring mandatory certificates of completion of projects that has to do with the energy code and I'll get a little bit more into that you know but Chapter eleven of the International residential code is the energy code for residential construction in the 2015 IRC they were in your background information there were two hundred and ten total significant changes from 2009 to 2015 some of those changes because it went from the nine to the twelve and then to the fifteen some of those changes reflect changes in the same category some in some cases they went up and then they went back down but there were two hundred ten total significant changes of those sixty of them were just clarifications definitions or clarifying a little closer wouldn't something meant forty seven actually relaxed the requirements and 103 were additional requirements now let me clarify that was saying an additional requirement didn't necessarily mean it's more stringent it was just something that's new in the code that wasn't in there before most of those I would say were more stringent or

[1:47:23] more restrictive but a lot of those were not there were just something that was not in there before so the the actual changes and amendments that we've made the there's a chart at the very beginning there's basic design values this is the snow load here first nanslo the frost depth and all those kinds of numbers those were all unchanged so we have to fill in the blanks every every time we amend it up this but those were unchanged the fence height exemption this is something that we are amending the building the residential code right now requires a permit for fences seven feet or above or above seven feet however our local zoning ordinance allows fences up to eight feet so it seems kind of silly to us to require permit for that one foot difference so basically we're just increasing that to eight feet so it matches what our local zoning regulations are so what that means is you don't have to get a permit to build a fence until you hit eight feet instead of seven feet the foundation Anchorage that's we left that unchanged we've been building things here for many many years under the current regulations so we didn't see a need to change it like the 2015 code was requiring or recommending the okay here's one of the big ones chapter 11 like I said is is the residential portion of the energy code and the energy code is where we had a lot of resistance from the beginning as is why we this took us so long to to review and get and get to where we are now so the energy code there is an International Energy Conservation code book however and that book is divided into the residential portion and the commercial portion the state of Texas mandated last year that all cities and Texas adopt the 2015 International Energy Conservation code international

[1:49:27] or national international the energy conservation code but they earned only the commercial provisions of it they also adopted statewide Chapter eleven of the resident of the International residential code which is the residential chapter in the in the residential code on energy so we decided to do the same thing we didn't adopt a residential section of the energy code we're adopting Chapter eleven of the residential code and the commercial provisions of the energy code that's a little confusing but we did that to stay in line with the state now the state also mandated that if you are in in a non-attainment county basically there's a list of I don't remember one hundred and fifty counties where you have to adopt the energy code and Chapter eleven as is without any any amendments any modifications we are not in one of those non-attainment counties so we are allowed to make amendments so that's that's where our process went through and we met with the building communities and in in in all these meetings and we kind of made some amendments and compromised what the building code was recommending or what the energy codes recommending and what we have now did you have question I mean I have a lot can continue all right is a question sir so they're our first major amendment to the energy code or chapter 11 residential code is we relaxed the minimum insulation values the as an example in walls currently the 2009 energy code requires an r-13 insulation in your walls the 2015 chapter 11 requires in either in our 19 in your walls or an ar-15 plus a continuous insulation of r5 so we kind of compromised and went back to either an

[1:51:31] ar-15 overall or an r-13 plus a continuous installation of r1 that means you can still do insulation just like you are now but then you would have to add an r1 which is it's a minimum continuous insulation board or on the outside a lot of our builders are already doing that now so it's it's it's really not that big of a jump but overall as you'll see we are thoughts were that we need to at least make some increases because this more the states going to start mandating these bigger increases and rather than having to make a big jump some point in the future we want at least start making small jumps now so in each of these categories for these insulation values we took what we have now we took what the 15 is requiring and we kind of met halfway in between so that's what we did on that ceiling value in in ceilings with no addicts basically the ceiling insulation is jump to an art 30 but if you have a vaulted ceiling with no attic typically if you have a two by six rafters you can't fit in our 30 insulation inside that space so we put an exemption in there allowing those to be our 19 but we could put a cap on that of 500 square feet if you if your room is making the 500 feet your rafters are going to be more than our than two-by-sixes anyway so you can get more insulation in there these next two are also the two big items that we went back and forth quite a bit and this is what the commit again these are what these committees recommended and a lot of these my personal feelings because my personal feeling was that we adopt the codes as as they are I mean for the most part there's areas where I agree that we should have made changes but things things like this this is what the committee decided and that's what I'm bringing forward so blower tests basically the 2015 energy codes required that aren't houses now you basically

[1:53:36] seal up the house and put a machine up to the house and blow air into it and if you have a minuscule amount of leakage you fail this is something that's very very difficult to do it it can be done but it raises the cost of the house tremendously so basically we we haven't been doing this in the past the 2009 version which we have now in fact the 2009 version we have now already requires a blower test but it also has an option to do visual inspections so basically we left the language as it is now in 2009 or we can do the visual inspections and basically that leaves it up to inspectors to walk around just make sure that cracks are cocked and and everything is sealed as best they can but we're not requiring the blower test here in San Angelo duct tests very similar only it's for the HVAC mechanical system the the ducts there again they're sealed you have to make sure that that there's no leak zero leakage whatsoever these are very hard to pass because the a lot of times the the equipment itself has leaks in it and there's nothing the contractor can do about that so basically we're keeping them again keeping the languages where it is now and we're allowing for visual inspection we figure if the contractors doing the best they can we make sure that all the joints are sealed and ducted and and you know everything's cocked and gasketed and that's that's kind of the best that we can do water level monitoring devices that's something that a lot of the plumbers were asking for it just basically it's the overflow system in your pans so external devices not a lot by code but they're popular here so we went ahead and allowed them to be used so I don't know if you want to take changes on the residential code on each one as we go or do you already just go through the whole thing we well maybe we should stop and do one thing at a time I think my two questions I have number one based off of the things we

[1:55:40] presented how much does that add to the cost of a home I don't have dollar numbers but it is something we looked at tab and I know Christian is here from the Home Builders Association and some of the things some of the members from the home Bar Association tab puts out reports on increased values of homes based on what the codes require and the IRC in particular Kristin you have to be able to buy afford to be able to buy the house to start with I think the IRC and again it's it's very dependent on what level house you're building and what exactly you're requiring but I'll stop my head I think that remember us I was an additional five thousand dollars based on IRC requirements not the energy code requirements but IRC requirements five thousand dollars puts some people out of the ability to buy a home you know maybe sell them oh it's just five thousand dollars but five thousand dollars makes the difference between whether you can afford to buy it and the bank will loan you the money or not and my great concern is if you look at it we have 39 pages of changes there's a lot it's 247 additions 123 clarifications and 85 relaxations that's a lot of paper a lot of change and I want to know the impact on the cost of a home and what happens if you remodel a home or what level are you going to be required to bring it up to and we need affordable housing in the city of San Angel it's the number one request of for durable housing and I want to make sure that we're not putting out there things that are not required by law to do but feels good to do and changes and increases the cost of a home and I have a citizen who would like to come forward to make a comment name's Tanner Cole stirrer I'm a plumbing contractor owner

[1:57:46] Cole stir plumbing one thing I would like to point out on this and I've got other stuff along this whole code thing in the duct work it specifies in here for visual inspections instead of a blower test or other tests I'm not a ductwork I'm not an a/c guy I'm a plumber but we're here for visual inspections I can look at his gray vest I can look at his black best to tell you the same tell you from here oh they're their same brand visual I don't know if they're same brand Israel does not mean that it's sealed and it's put in correctly visual is nothing but visual something else is your cost of these homes going up I do agree they are going up a lot we go up every six months on stuff what San Angelo is behind five to seven years behind every other city and city in Texas when are we gonna catch up just a little step here a little step here we're not catching up you know y'all earlier in this whole thing you're talking about the school district building a new school want to catch up want to want to catch up to play with the big schools you have to sketch up everywhere not just one place it's thank you thank you I guess my response to that is our inspectors are trained on what they're looking for so when they look at his gray suit and his dark suit

[1:59:48] they're not gonna stand here and tell you what brand they are they're gonna ask the question let me see the paperwork on your suit and so I can see what brand it is and make sure it's it meets the standards that worked before they know what they're looking for so they're they're visual inspections are to make sure that it's sealed the way it's supposed to be that it's caught the way it's supposed to be I mean it's not tested with a machine but I mean it's the way we've been doing it for a long time and again that's one of those things that's gonna raise the cost of the houses haven't hire somebody because you'd have to do this third party had to hire a company to come in and do these tests and then fail so then they had to come in and do some more work to it not to mention that the practice or the the way that they build these to make these pass these tests rate as to the cost of the house so let me say something real quick on that item right there the cost of the house the building codes are designed to promote or to protect the health safety and welfare of the public but part of that welfare one of the one of the building codes at the beginning do say that we have to take affordability into account so if it's an item you know when we look at these changes and again most of these change there's a lot of paperwork there mayor but a lot of that stuff is stuff that's been in the code for a long time they just decided you know maybe we should have done this instead of that if it's something that that has to do with the safety of the building then that's where I held a line or said no I think we need to do this but the energy haven't said that our buildings were unsafe before this conversation right because we passed specific issues that dealt with those issues along the way so we're not saying today if you built it yesterday it's unsafe just because today I have new regulations on it and we know that the bureaucracy permit tends to make building more complicated more a cult and more expensive right and what I want to make sure we're not doing today is creating expense that is not

[2:01:53] required homes that are unaffordable when not required to implement these things because even though it says save save was a different definition last year and the year before and the year before and the decade before we just get more heavily regulated more rules more regulations I mean 39 pages and yeah maybe but 247 are new editions that's a lot of change yes might not be necessary and might be very expensive and we do our best or we've done our best over the past I don't know however long we've had a building department here to make to make sure houses are safe and some of these make some areas safer you know things things happen somewhere there you realize well maybe this was could be done better but you can only make things safe up to a point I agree with that and there are some and we've talked about that in these committees and there are some things you're gonna see in some of these other areas that we thought were overboard and were and like you said it's a change that yes it would make safe but there's only so many things you can do I mean we we talked a lot in the committee's about speed limit laws I mean if you really wanted to make everything safe the speed limit everywhere would be 10 miles an hour you can't regulate to the lowest level exactly so so we to clarify on the dollar amount you talked about that the International residential code you coated the 5000 was that based on all of the changes they were recommending yes and as I say ston our recommendations which are less than what they were recommended is correct so that is based on if you did everything they said to do so we can't give you exactly what ours are but ours as you can see or much relaxed from what they were doing did your your committee as a whole recommend this portion as being acceptable yes yes like I said we've had a lot of meetings with the Home Builders Association and

[2:03:56] of other groups and I think we were to the point where everybody's accepting of the changes that we're proposing and a lot of these changes that we're proposing are to relax and lower those requirements to what the standards are today because we were there were 85 relaxation well those those relaxations are what the in fact those numbers that you're quoting and and those 36 pages 39 pages that you're looking at those are if everything in the building code was as its proposed as the 2015 model codes are proposed so that's then they themselves relax some of the number of items they themselves added that number of items that's not the number of amendments that we've made locally that's those 39 pages or what the International Code Council has put forth how many of these are things that we've decided we want to implement but are not required it was I think I've probably made about just toughed I've made about 30 amendments I didn't count them but we've amended about 30 of those items I don't think we increased anything all of those were either or compromises or lower this what she's asking is is what are we required to implement are you required to implement anything or can you leave the code exactly like it is yes as a municipality home rule municipality we can add up whatever codes we want we have the codes for you know safety purposes all those kind of things so we try to keep a modern with as you have materials that change and technology and all those things so a lot of those you have new materials and so you need to change to adapt to those things but so if there are things and that's why we put the committee together because we

[2:05:57] really want it to be what San Angelo wants but leave it exactly like it is it's probably not a good idea yes if I could just add to that real quick if you chose to we could leave everything under 2009 codes the 2015 energy code in the chapter 11 energy code that gets that had to go back and visit with Teresa about that because the state has mandated those be adopted I'm asking which ones were not mandated and don't have to change that none of the others we're mandated I understand mandates I want to know where our flexibility exists leji is the only one he's saying that was mandated portions of it okay I want to thank al we've been working on this actually about three years and also our new building official charlie and all these amendments and I don't speak for the home builders but a lot of us have worked on this all the amendments in here we are for this is lessening the code these 39 pages may be a lot but if we adopt the code as is the numbers we're showing are according to the 2015 meeting with the builders and the Appling which adopted the 2015 code as is we're looking about eight dollars a square foot per home you adopt the 2015 code is eight dollars per square foot additional cost yes ma'am like the International residential code wants you to do exactly if you're and what you're the builders are supporting is what dollar per square foot our estimates are about three dollars and so and we know that we are way behind and we need to do something now so because then we're going to have 18 which is

[2:07:59] already out and then we're gonna have 20 which is already out and so we look at this as kind of going halfway let's get some of this stuff implemented we do believe in visual we're all professionals and so I think somebody can professionally look at something and tell whether it is works or not as as examples I personally did too blower door tests on two of my houses two years ago to see where I was personally I want to know how my houses were both of them passed and so I don't think that's a requirement that's just adding letting somebody else come in create a business and create bureaucracy and red tape and charge us to do a blower door test or a duct test to see that it passed when we can visually look at it and pretty much know that it does pass the bottom line is the homeowner that homeowner moves into a home and their electric bill is astronomical for some reason there's a problem so then that problem be corrected and so there are going to be accidents and the blower torque tests say something else and it not be correct it's just technology and so but as far as the amendments we want to thank Alan Charlie we're I think I am I can't speak for the home builders but I am for all of them and it's like I said it's just a halfway step for us to get closer to 20 2015 Oliver are you here yeah good morning I'm Kristen Oliver with the Home Builders Association and where we are never in favor of regulation because that usually always translate to higher cost we just want to thank al in the city they have been tremendous in working with us we have had countless hours countless meetings they have gone through line by line but all of these codes and I'll tell you what if nothing I'll put you to sleep like these codes I mean these books yeah I am sure you yes anyway on behalf of the home builders we are in

[2:10:00] favor of what they are doing like Rocky was saying had we implemented these changes to the 2015 the costs are just astronomical and so really this is actually a savings this is a win-win I believe for not only the home builders but also for home buyers and again we just want to really compliment Al and his team and just their willingness to work with us to listen and just to work with reason and what these new codes are going to be and so we we completely and 100% support owl candy candy do you have any comments I'll continue ok the that was the IRC the 2015 International Energy Conservation code like I said we were only adopting the commercial provisions of the IECC Chapter eleven comes out of the RTI lots of residential construction so in the Energy Conservation code there were again 127 total changes and then this is from the model codes before we made any amendments 25 clarifications 14 relaxed requirements 88 added requirements we only in meeting with the engineers and commercial contractors you aren't that many here but basically everybody's kind of on board with and they see these necessary changes on the commercial side some of the things that we thought we'd see resistance on or the the documents that they had and the testing has to be done at the end but they were all pretty much for that they asked me to leave those in there because they they all felt like they they want to see that the systems are working so that there are problems a year from now you know because of the warranty issues so really the only two things I was asked to remove if we sit here long enough the lights will go out I'm sure you all have seen that those lighting controls are required and there's a list of places where those are required and and one of the places is a private office well the

[2:12:05] committee didn't feel like private offices you don't really need that in your own office if you want to go and then take a nap you want to be you don't care if the light goes off so we removed that from the list and then there's another section that now requires skylight skylights are not mandatory if your space is over a certain size that adds daylight to your system and reduces an amount of lighting but skylights have their own set of problems so right so we didn't want that to be something that they had to do so we took that section out so those are the only two amendments that we made to the commercial provisions the International plumbing code again same numbers I got from those documents 95 total changes 28 clarifications 37 too relaxed and 30 new requirements this this first item I know Tanner came up a minute ago and he's here specifically to address this so it's got its own slide here there's actually two sections of the plumbing code one that requires what we call a water test and basically what that does is at the top out stage you go in and you plug all your or your sewage pipes you pressurize it fill it full of water and the water has to go up ten column feet or up a pipe ten feet to show that there are no leaks in the system this is important primarily not as I mean for water too but even for methane gas we won't you know we don't want methane gas leaking into the house so it's it's important we do this water step another section requires purple primer I'm sure if you all have done any plumbing at home the way you connect PVC pipes is you you prime it first and then make a purple primer and then make a clear primer so you most people use the purple primer you prime it and that prepares the pipe for the cement and then you put the cement on connect them and that creates a weld some contractors don't like purple primer because it

[2:14:10] makes a mess so what we've done is is on the purple primer part we have exempted purple primer that we're because the code route says you have to use a primer period so what we're saying is if you have the trim out stages which is where you have a chance of spilling the primer you're doing plumbing underneath your cabinets spilling it on your cabinet or on stained floors we allow clear primer at those levels but on the roughen stage in the top out stage we want that purple primer primarily on this water test in particular a lot of the builders came forward said they didn't like the idea of you having to do the water test so our respect we talked about it and our inspectors are comfortable with the idea that it's there from the if they can see that purple primer has been used then they're fairly comfortable with the idea that the whole process has been followed they did the primer that did the cement and it's probably a good joint it's not a guarantee that's not gonna leak but it's chances are pretty good that it was done correctly so they are willing to not require the water test if they can see that the joints of all things being taken care of if we allow clear cement to be used then you can't tell if it's been primed or not unless you look at it up close which means they'd have to get ladders and look at each joint individually so what we do is we kind of compromise the code run now requires that you do both the water test and the purple primer so what we're saying is if you use a purple primer you don't have to do the water test and this is at the top out stage if if you want to use clear primer then you have to do the water test so we compromise one or the other and I know like I said Tanner in particular and I think there may be others that feel like he does but he is when they came to me and said he wanted to come forward and speak against this particular item so in Tanner colder colder plumbing this is the main reason

[2:16:16] I'm here today I've been done plumbing for 16 years had my own business and incident everything's been in San Angelo I've been in business for myself for right at 8 years been doing new construction homes for right at seven seven and a half years I think the word purple needs to be taken out of this completely I am completely against purple primer it's a visual is all it is city inspectors they go over health safety and welfare is what they're after I'm with them on that hundred percent that's what my job is my license and everything else being purple doesn't mean that that pipe is sealed we do service we do new construction we do everything I had been back to every type of pipe that there is every type of glue that there is where they've come apart because they weren't done correctly just because the color doesn't mean a difference I could the code reads that the pipe has to be purp or the primer has to be purple the code also reads that the glue cannot be purple doesn't mean that the glue can't be blue grey so at the same time of this if I my pipe of purple primer and I glue it with a grey glue and you don't see the purple primer are they gonna fill my inspection because they can't visually inspect that there's purple primer under it I don't care to use grey glue I run many many trucks purple primer has a lot of things other than the health safety and welfare

[2:18:23] it stains trucks it stains concrete floors it stains everything it touches last week I went to a meeting with them that morning I did my entire hand in purple primer yeah other hand and clear primer my hand was purple for four days dip dragged back and forth clothes uniforms I mean just everything it touches it stains yes when they're building a house the Builder can rep can cover the floor I'm not sure what can hold purple primer back 100% if you get a can of purple primer that spills from ten feet above its gonna soak through before you can get it cleaned up that's all there is to it some builders don't build homes that are staying floors I understand that but when they sell that home homeowner moves in three years later the carpets getting a little dingy in the bedroom they want to rip it out and put stained floors in which they do a lot they rip the carpet back which is a quite bad but they want staying floors they rip the back and they're big a purple spot on the floor that will show up when it's stained there's another issue my biggest problem with this is they've got it in the code now that if you don't use purple primer during top out stage which is in the rough framing stage of a house you have to water test it up until this I've used clear glue clear primer we haven't had a water test top outs we do water tests underground I do not use purple primer in the ground water test will show it yes saying I have to use purple primer

[2:20:27] underground on rough-ins at the whole thing of not using purple primary using water tests you go back to water conservation that's wasting a lot of water when it comes down to it the city of San Angelo comes in there and inspects that it's all correct as a visual thing it's all put together whether it's purple or clear doesn't mean that it's that is holding that doesn't matter the only way to do it's whether it's water tested 100% eight months from that from whenever that is if it starts leaking methane gas the plumbing contractor put it in is reliable to fix it not the city of San Angelo so on that point it's it's still my reliability whether I use purple or clear I believe purple needs to be taken out of the code the wording purple period because it's it's causing a bunch of issues if they want to keep water testing in there on top outs that's fine we can water test it is going to increase cost on houses and it's gonna use a bunch of extra water we have not had to do it up to this date I've done I don't know how many homes since in the last eight years I can't say that we don't make mistakes cuz we do good morning I just I do believe purple needs to be taken out of it and if the water test if they want to require it then we can go forward with water testing all of it but you know their visual inspection that's a thing thank you very much for your

[2:22:32] comments al how much water do we use when we water test when you Charlie camp the building official and talking to the plumbing inspectors depending on the size of the house you're looking approximately 150 gallons like on a two-bed recuse me a to bathroom residents so this water test required at top out inspection uses a hundred and fifty gallons is there another option here the other option that we had talked about that's why when we met with the community that was one we talked about the primer the purple primer because you could see it from the ground and it would be a visual another alternative that we came up with as a smoke test and kind of trying to give as many options and stomach than ten of the code so this does not this proposal does not eliminate the waste of a hundred and fifty gallons correct they could either use like the purple primer or do a smoke test yes those three options water and you could do the water test smoke test or the purple primer what are you proposing those three like they're all three here yes ma'am because in the other there's a section of the code that indicates that you can do a smoke test okay Thank You al rocky would you like to come forward we all know you but maybe everybody on TV doesn't know you so go ahead and give it up rocky Templin we looked at this as a compromise with the water test we don't we we like that on the rough in all the pipes are in the ground we it says ten feet we actually put a pipe it's kind of another compromised about five feet so

[2:24:36] the plumbing inspector can walk up and see the water in that pipe and that is in the that's in the slab it's before it's pre poured in the ground we'd like to do that that is a visual you can see the water on the on the top out the problem with that is we have to go ten foot above the highest joint so that means on top out we're going to have to extend a pipe probably around feed off the slab so the plumbing inspector is going to have to have a ladder and it's going to have to climb up on that ladder and look in the top of that pipe so we looked at that as one or wasting water and into my experience with inspectors on ladders and attics is not good we've had several problems and so we didn't like that idea either so we looked at this as a compromise on top out that we could use purple primer I don't like purple primer but I agree with it I'm going to go with this and then on the final when we have finished products in the house we can use clear primer and so that we're not staining cabinets and floors and tubs and whatnot probably a dumb question but I'm asking it anyway is there another color besides purple that would be less damaging they only make the purple in the clear go ahead was there comment somebody wanted to add a comment I heard voices in the audience inspectors could use the same ladder to inspect the plumbing as they do the top of the duct system when it's sealed okay so I'm gonna I'm gonna I guess move on from that item like I said everybody seemed to be generally on board with every mo STUV the stuff we've proposed I knew this particular one we had some opposition so it it has its own slide here still on the plumbing code we left the drinking

[2:26:44] fountain exemption in there if you remember we changed a couple years ago drinking fountains are required pretty much every occupancy but they're not popular if you have a small business office so if you require to have one drinking fountain then you can replace it with a bottled water cooler and so that's that remained in their water sewer popping is still required to be separated this this next one's another big one the new codes reduced the distance that hot water can traveled from 100 feet to 50 feet what that means is if you if your water is traveling more than 50 feet then you have to put in now water circulation systems which again adds to the cost of the house or water heaters are gonna have to be moved towards the center of the house like they used you know in like they have to be in some places and that has its own set of problems that was pretty unpopular with everybody in the committee so we left it the way it is currently which is that 100 feet moving on to the electric code there were some things that were added that had to be ground fault circuit interrupter in addition to what's already in the list we've never required them to be these are the stuff that's under the counter in the kitchen everything in the kitchen is required to be GFCI protected the stuff under the counter never has been so we left it the way we've been doing it for a long time same thing with laundry areas they've never been required before arc fault is another big one that again we talked about can you over protect a house so the new code in fact this is an exemption we made in 2009 as well in 2006 arc faults were something that were fairly new and they were only required in bedrooms it's a different kind of protection the GFCI but in 2009 and in the current codes art faults are now required and in the entire house but the way the committee

[2:28:48] looked at it all of your wet areas kitchens and bathrooms are already GFCI protected your living areas dens if if your lamp sparks and catches on fire if you're in your living room chances are you're awake watching TV or visiting or whatever so you can respond really the big danger is your bedrooms because if you're asleep and your lamp sparks and catches on fire in your sleep then you're slow your reaction time is slower so we thought bedrooms still made sense but requiring it in the rest of the house didn't so we we changed that language to how it used to be in 2006 so that it's only required in the bedrooms the new code increased how many outlets you have to have in a garage and if somebody is building a big garage and they want to put multiple outlets that's fine but we didn't want to tell people you have to have three outlets when one is all they need underground electric lines we want them marked with red tape that's a safety feature none of the electricians had an issue with that and then we're the preview of boxes are not required outdoor receptacles are required to be weather weatherproof but these new boxes that they've started creating they're brokey they don't work very well they break all the time so we exempted those and some electricians will probably still continue to do them just out of choice the mechanical code again 69 total changes 15 clarifications 12 relaxed and 42 additional requirements we added the section on homeowners permits that existed in the plumbing and electrical for some reason it was missing in the mechanical code it basically allows a homeowner to pull his own permit if he's home stated and he owns the house this next change is was a pretty universal we ever seem to think that we had this already but we don't

[2:30:51] if you have a bathroom vent on residence you are allowed to vent that bathroom into the attic not not your kitchen vents but your bathroom ends right now the code says you have to take it through the roof but again you have potential for leaks it's more expensive you know etc Blenheim is allowed in an attic without a duct a plenum space is the space between your ceiling in your roof and right now you can use that space as return air back to your unit if you have if it's a commercial building you have firewalls and you have an opening where you you got air going from one plenum space to another planet space to get back to the unit then you have to put what we call a fire damper in that wall so basically there's a fire that fire dampers shuts down so you don't have smoke traveling through that wall the new code increased the requirements that not only do you have to have the fire depper but now you have to have ducts that actually duct the return air all the way back to the unit we didn't think that was necessary it's adding adding cost to the project without any good reason so when the current system works just fine so we left it alone as it is now and then the last change one of our mechanical contractors who does a lot of the fireplaces here in town there's a there was a limit on angles that allowed for chimneys a factory built fireplaces he said that's not an issue except for wood fireplaces so we just added the word would do that section the international existing building code basically which is where a lot of our current exemptions come from you you talked me earlier about when people do remodels do they have to bring things up to code this allows them pretty much to if its existing there they're exempt from bringing a lot of stuff up to up to standards unless I mean there's different levels and the more you do the more you have to bring things up to code but for the most part a lot of stuff you you can kind of leave it as is if you're just replacing it or fixing in a room you know yes many people need want to remodel their homes

[2:32:55] but we can't expect him to go from the codes of 1940 up to the codes of 2015 otherwise they can't afford to remodel and it's not okay this gives you a lot of those those kinds of exemptions one of my questions pertaining to the insulation there's a lot of times I'll remodel at home and I'm not going to put an exterior if I'm not doing anything to the exterior and extra barriers would go from our 13 to 15 plus correct so you would still be able to tear sheetrock out reinsulate the walls with the existing OSB on the outside we look at those on a case-by-case basis and the remodels because you know sometimes it's kind of borderline are you above that percentage of you know where that threshold is or you not but for the most part you you brought a correct now the other thing I will say about the insulation value one of your options is to do r15 in the wall without the continuous insulation and the builders are telling me that there's foam products now that you can get an r15 in a 2x4 wall so that's always an option as well which is why we went with that number 15 so anyway so this this were proposed to adopt without any exemptions nobody had any issues with that and then same thing with the last one the International fuel gas code we nobody had any issues with it the way it was proposed that is the end of my presentation so I'll entertain any other questions and I can what I want to say is I want to compliment Alan your group of people but also the home builders group rocky Templin and everyone who spent the time and energy and effort to going through this because if you take a look again and I say 247 additions 123 clarifications 85 relaxations over 39 pages of paperwork it's pretty overwhelming and I don't want at the end of the day with all this change to have a lot of unhappy people with what's going on we need to learn to work together to come up with common solutions that benefit everybody and not

[2:34:57] try to force too much heavy regulation and costs onto the building of whether it's residential or commercial and we went through our committee meetings with exactly that in mind and I do also want to thank the entire home builders group in architects in town engineers everybody that helped me on these committees electricians plumbers mechanical contractors over-regulation is not something we need everybody catch I'm din tell me what they and I tell them some of this stuff that I recommended might not be what everybody wanted but it's what most of us wanted and rocky in particular did a lot of research that you know help me out with and figure some of this out so I want to thank them as well okay thank you all right with that let me go back to my sheet we need to do here so that was a first reading and public hearing of the 200 and should I repeat it again the 247 editions 123 clarifications and 85 relaxation 's and a whole stack of paper print paper I guess we can recycle this okay maybe that's today not tomorrow don't want to get ahead of ourselves sorry I may even make that comment [Laughter] okay with that ask one question just for Tanner just to clarify your preference is clear but you're saying if a plumber goes with the purple primer they're exempt from either doing a water test or a gas test is that correct it is correct how you're forced to be the one to have to go through a water water or gas test or its smoke test sorry you know as a group of plumbers and our home builders or whatever I think you all have a lot of power and there's a lot of groups on a national basis can't you get the purple color changed if all of you demand purple to be different can't we do that you'll have a lot of power you

[2:37:01] have a lot of organizations you have a lot of whatever if purple is a problem let's find another solution lilac maybe use the fast-setting but don't match the code as it is today I mean as of right now we use clear or if you want to use property do but we do not water test top balance never have I'm not think that's the biggest problem here is the builders don't want the extra expensive water testing top outs so they're their easiest thing on that as the plumbers use purple primer so right now the water test is not required not on top not anything above a slab unless it's two-story so really has to be tested but either go through a water gas test smoke test clarify water or smoke test or use purple primer so it's just the wording but right now it's option it's not it's the water smoke test is gonna be an increased cost the purple primer it's being in case cost somebody's going to cover the floor have we seen a lot of failures is that what this is bringing or a purple primer for purple orchid every plumbing truck that's why I don't think it's rather it's purple or clear I like someone have a leak right they just the inspectors in the meeting that we had last week we're talking that purple you can see that you primer it better but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's so it's a better solvent weld the two primers are

[2:39:07] the exact same Tanner how are they gonna test your job I mean if you go through and do a house I'm like how do they test it right now they don't can I have it ever on on the top underground we water test underground we water test and that's it don't matter what you use them I mean it as this code read you now you have to use purple primer whether you perfect you still have to water test underground no matter what but you still have to use purple primer that's part of the thing you they're making us use purple primer underground I don't believe in that I mean it's the primer has nothing to do with our job you solve it the same making the same weld here with purple and purple with clear glue is the same as making it with clear and clear over here and they do make different colors of glue but my whole company I've always based my my dill off of we carried clear and clear and that's it every plumber has that option a everybody in it and it is it's you can bring ten plumbers in here and I bet you get ten different opinions yes so keeping Mo's 90% will be against purple primer though because of the mess that it makes no the job it has nothing no difference that's raw was that taking the word purple out of the code and as for the water test we don't do it now we hat in the last eight years I've been doing new construction for myself last 16 years as a plumber so

[2:41:12] we're not repeat that the idea of the water test and 150 gallons so we're not doing that any at this point with anybody so but it says that go back to that slide I'll cuz I think it basically says that we do it by the nature that it still exists well tanners correct we have updated up to today we have not been enforcing the water test at the top mount and the purple primer in 2009 we actually exempted the word purple and basically we had the same argument then a lot of plumbers don't like the purple because it gets on the cabinets it gets on the tubs it gets on the stained floors so in 2009 we actually exempted we took the word purple out the code requires purple it says and and and it's not any better than the clear primer he's right again on that they do the same job the only difference is that you can definitely see the purple from a distance when I do plumbing you can definitely see because it gets all over everything but the purple is just something it's a visual thing it's sympton allows the plumber to look at it quickly and say yes it's got the primers got the primer is it a guarantee that it's not gonna leak no it just kind of helps him be more sure that it was probably the steps were taken to do it correctly you know that at least there is a primer there so you know the cement should be there now he by all rights they could have put the primer on not put some in you can go in there just take it apart they're not gonna go check him to that extent we can only do so much but at least that helps that step same thing with the water test again tanners correct the liability ultimately comes back to him six months later if their customers smelling methane gas and there's a leak somewhere in the system it's gonna be him that they call to come back and fix it and he's got to find the leak and get it repaired we don't want customers to have to get that point so we try to do our best to make sure the leaks are gone you know that that's the purpose of our inspection but we have not been doing that up to this point

[2:43:13] so again if as a council you decide that's what how you want us to go you don't want us to have to do the purple primer or them to have to do the purple primer or do the water test that's what we'll do ultimately it goes back to him but we're just trying to kind of take that extra step to help protect the customer from getting to that point so it's an option it's not a requirement we are making it an option the code says it's a requirement no so my point is is the way it's been presented today gives you the option yes so any plumber can do it the way they want to do it right they don't have to use the purple primer correctly and I do what I know I know Jenner said I know tanner said he he'd just as soon see it go to whatever the code says as is the problem with that is that the code says you have to use purple primer and everything we know exceptions on the finished work no exemptions any words you have to use purple primer period and I think that's basically what he doesn't want to do is use a primer all right but I thought you just said the code says you have options it's not requirement that's what that's what we're proposing the code says you have to use purple primer and the code says you have to do a water test you're saying you don't have to do a water test and you don't have to use purple primer that's how we're proposing and that's what we're proposing that you do one or the other that's what you're that's supports what you're saying the other water test or use purple primer smoke test another thing is is and rock you can vouch for this one I'm sure 99.9 percent of the times if there's a leak six months later on a vent system it's not a glued fitting that that's leaking it's usually something a nail or something after sheetrock has hit the pipe and broke the pipe in a wall and you find that with the smoke test later

[2:45:15] on not a water test not when the house is done that's it orc sir camera that kind of stuff you're not gonna prevent with the water test or purple primer now anyway because once we leave the top out it's in framing stage they come in there and they blow insulation and she rock it over it with cabinets that's all your stuff happens to the pipe I'm not saying you can't have a missed fitting that's not glued or something because it is possible we're all human mistakes are made know the code how it's getting read now is use purple and you don't have to water test which my problem with that is that's just visual you've seen failure there's no purple primer just because purple doesn't mean that is gluten eating better than clear water test it's a waste of water and a whole lot of extra a whole lot of extra steps well that just means you'll have to climb the ladder to inspected we go with clear is that correct that's what I'm hearing at this counter that now they'll have to though I'm that's what I'm hearing what he's suggesting is though that we would take it out totally you wouldn't require the test at all so you're okay Tennessee best-case scenario keep it as it is as of right now and repeat what that is well mm-hmm and you don't have to water test to top out is that yes but though the code is yes we have a question and this is strictly a layperson that question yes this is strictly a laypersons question we're doing this test to see if there's a leak and possibly a methane gas leak right so is that us how is that safety issue addressed because if I go to bed early at six o'clock and I don't awaken until six o'clock the next morning and

[2:47:19] methane gases leak at all well that's what I'm saying so why would we eliminate the test or not do the test to check for the methane gas I'm not saying don't do it I'm just saying we haven't been doing it it hasn't been enforced the last eight years that I've been doing new construction I know that's a big that's another cost on builders that's gonna see is cost if we're looking at cost let's not do it my pocketbook says let's do it it's more money in my pocket more work it guarantees at the end of the day I don't have a leak so six months later whenever I get a call that there's methane gas in a house I can go to the Builder and say hey look it was tested before you sheetrocked now they have a leak somebody hit something there's no questions about whose fault it is later on I'm all for the test I'm just saying if you if you want to look at cost stuff for the builders that's one of them that I would do away with hadn't been doing it any time in the last eight years so that part's not not a big deal on me my bill is a whole word purple it it was taken out of the code in 2009 or 2010 was adopted I don't think it needs to be put back in the code the water test is rarely I mean it's I mean it's all up to you all but the water test is it's either or I it don't bother me it's gonna cost builders more but it ensures guarantee that there's no all right so I'll go back to the way it currently reads so we can read it and understand it do you have a slide please

[2:49:37] so this is essentially a summary the actual ordinance language I didn't put on here but it's in senior background packet but basically let me ask the question water testing is not required as of today well water testing is in the building is in the plumbing code as of today it's been in the plumbing code for a long time it has not been enforced up to today there have been no problems and well I mean there's occasional problems but like Tanner said if a problem comes up they typically will call the contractor I mean the plumbing contractor or the Builder they go back after the fact and fix it this step basically would just kind of help us prevent those problems ahead of time so we get a lemonade if we if we eliminate the water tests and and the purple primer which is what how we're doing today if we eliminate both of those we will be how we're doing things today I know we you mentioned the methane gas I don't we're not really talking about the amounts of methane gas that's really a safety issue you know if you have a leak you're gonna smell it you're gonna call somebody as soon as you start smelling it and they can come fix it so chances are it's gonna build up enough to cause some kind of a issue very slim but if you're out of town or on vacation in the methane gas is building up in your house potential explosion again I don't think we're talking about those levels of been really yeah I'm like in a in a factory or something where you have larger larger amounts but I cannot consider research that and make sure that that's not an issue before our second reading okay so if if we take out the water test and the purple primer the forces but we've talked about it we can live with that if that's the way you want to go we're just trying to again put that step

[2:51:41] in there give them an option from what the building code requires give them an option so they don't have to use a purple primer but they can do the smoke test or the water test or they can do the water test and I can do either either/or but if you tell us you you don't think they should do they have to do either that's what we're doing today and we haven't had problems with what we're doing today not that I can point to so why are we changing something that hasn't been a problem because we're trying to because again we're we know that there are problems out there I just can't tell you how many problems there were never create a regulation that prevents a hundred percent of anything exactly you can't stop somebody on something that might happen I realize that but this is a step that we can again it's all visual like you said that we can visually look at a pipe and say okay we think it's done correctly there shouldn't be any leaks here I mean that's the whole purpose of everything that we do you know because otherwise everything ultimately comes back to the Builder or the plumber the electrician or the I certainly don't believe in wasting 150 gallons of water on this test it doesn't sound like conservation is that the conversation it's a trade-off again I mean you have to do one of the other I'll remind us what the did the Committee have this much discussion on this this specific guy know that this is really something that came up just a few weeks ago of some of the builders asked actually asked for a special meeting so we got together again and they were asking specifically about the water test and and they saw the going through the language they saw that it's in there they were aware that we have not been doing it up to now but pointed it out to as I said are you going to start requiring this at this stage so at that point since we're aware of it the questions been asked we said well it's a requirement we really should be testing for it and decided to do that however we also realized the problem that you know

[2:53:44] that that causes the purple primer causes a he called in' and mentioned that because as soon as I found that out I started sending the word out to everybody that this is something we're looking at so that's how we came back to the compromise so Teresa what kind of liability does the city have since it's in the and we choose if we chose to exempt the purple primer and the water test and there is heaven forbid some tragic accident what kind of liability does the city have since it's in the code in those cases we only have liability in cases where we knew that there was going to be harm and we did nothing to prevent it in a case where something might go wrong so we're putting these these stages or these steps in place to prevent any possible harm as a general rule cities don't have liability for those those are considered discretionary types of decisions okay so with that there's a lot of information a lot of details and so if we have a motion we can have a motion with some exceptions to it - before it moves forward - second reading or we can accept it as presented today with no changes so I need to hear from Council where your mindset is is there a second you have to change the motion you can well my only concern is what Theresa brought up here annette has been pointed out with this there is no test on that I mean it's not uh no if I have a plum road tab Tanner all right so that's not questions every plumber I get well they have the quality you have I don't know that so I certainly see the point of you know what if I go by and see purple I know that at least use primer if they didn't use it well then

[2:55:47] I'm not for sure I don't want to drag this horse out but I think it's Airport that we can say from this point forward on the motion you know in the building codes we're gonna get a permit we document the plumbing has not been tested I mean these houses have not had a we're not did not use purple primer and did not have a water test on can we document that and state that upfront and if somebody buys that with that that's fine with me you could absolutely indicate that that's the standard we're using so that people are aware and then if a builder wanted to add that they could I don't know how we phrase that line the lane can we rephrase it to say to add a language which you just added to it I will do that I will accept a move to accept the International Building Code as presented with the exceptions of the event water test / purple primer and adding to that documentation to state if the test was done or not that we do not require the test was that do we a public comment Steve Hampton I'd like to compliment al and his presentation I think this is one of the finest two presentations I've ever heard and codes usually it's rubber stamped and and pushed on through like we heard that maybe Abilene did I think that's poor politics poor business also we've heard of changes that are not going in because we did we choose not to do it and I like that approach also of these things and we've talked to an ignorant inordinate amount of time about purple dye and these can these little things like that can be changed on peer

[2:57:56] review and evaluation and we we pass these loss through there they the books come out they stack up to be way high and nobody can possibly catch our everything but if we had a review peer review and revaluation periodically on everything that comes through like this we we should implement that kind of approach that way if we miss something we can fix it and it doesn't have to go on until these things come out about every two or three years and you know we can deal with it thank you thanks Steve do I have further public comment I just wanted are you kind of brought that up man we need to pay attention to the two there was a lot more additions than there were the other and so I just I want to make sure that we're not adding any environmental more regulation that is not needed I just want that considered thank you and that is a lot to go through and I think you offer all your work thank you we want less regulation yes where we can have it and I think that's an importance and I believe the Home Builders Association and the group of people on the committee we're very instrumental in making sure that the changes as presented were not

[2:59:58] burdensome to the point that it would be costly so I appreciate that further public comment with no further public comment then we will take a vote all in favor say aye aye any opposed motion passes 7 0 you're going to take a 10-minute break and then we will come back and we will discuss item E before we discuss item D okay I've a.m. and we will start by considering regular agenda II consider authorizing the San Angelo Fire Department to accept and execute the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response safer grant for 1 million 96 192 for 8 additional firefighters this is a three-year grant that the city will pay 25% of the salaries in year 1 25% year to 65% in year 3 and the full amount of salaries and benefits starting the fourth year cost at the end of the 4th year will be five hundred ninety two thousand five hundred thirty six Todd you're on warning mayor council city manager I appreciate the opportunity to come talk to you today about this mayor if it's okay I'd like to just kind of recap what got us here if that's all right for I know you all know but for the citizens here back in April 17th I came and brought the possibility of applying for a safer grant to Council to hire eight additional firefighters the council approved that that opportunity and so I wrote the grant and I told you first of all I want to apologize because I told you the grant would start in July is when we would know well the first grant was given July the 20th by the federal government and they gave two of them we didn't receive our grant until September the 7th so I apologize I told y'all that

[3:02:03] we would be getting it sooner but can't really do what the federal government's gonna do is what they're gonna do so I know that kind of puts you in a bind because you had already planned on your budget and stuff but it wasn't anything that we had control over it was a hundred percent the federal government so we received notification on September 7th that we had the grant and so what's the grant actually for the grants for eight firefighters so I've had a lot of citizens this has been a lone Council meeting so I've had a lot pulled me out and asked me what what's this about so I want to just explain it real briefly we're asking for eight new firefighters and it's a hundred percent safety issue safety driven it is not I had one citizen ask aren't you just really are argue padding your numbers absolutely not this is 100% safety of the men and women of the Senate slow fire department so what we're asking for we want to put one more person on our ladder truck which is a million dollar apparatus that ladder truck right now is being used as a pumper truck a fire truck just like all the rest of the trucks in the city it's a million dollar piece of equipment that is strictly to be used as a ladder company why is that important we have over a hundred 121 three-story and above buildings in the city of San Angelo some of those buildings have elderly folks there are residential elderly living facilities I need for personnel to be able to run that apparatus as a ladder company not a fire truck a ladder company I do want to correct a couple of things that I did talk to a couple of councilmen about I told you it was a 300 gallon truck that actually has 400 gallons in it and so instead of a two minute firefighting they can fight fire for three minutes so it still doesn't matter that truck was not made to fight fire that truck was to be used as a ladder truck so why is this such a passion and why do we have to have four people on this truck

[3:04:07] this document right here is from the Ferrara which makes that fire truck on every single page that's highlighted in blue right here of this operation manual is a warning and I want to read you what the last page warning says it's safety warning in big bold letters the qualified person shall never allow any part of the aerial to be occupied without a qualified person at the main aerial control station the qualified person shall be at this main control station every second of aerial operations so what that means is if we put our ladder truck up and we are spraying water like we did at the warehouse fire downtown the other doctor about a month or two ago and we stopped that fire by the brave actions as some of the men sitting behind me here but if we put that ladder truck up and spraying water that means we have to have one person at the pump panel monitoring all of the water pumps engages we have to have one person up on top of the firetruck monitoring the aerial operation stuff on the control panel then you have to have two firefighters in the basket that is a minimum of four firefighters we have three that particular day we had two firefighters up and we had our driver which this is what they do every single fire we have to use this apparatus he's running back from the pump panel to the control panel on the ladder back and forth and it's not like you can just run for me to Rick over there you have to crawl up a ladder to get to that panel then you have to crawl back down that ladder to get to the the control panel we got a firefighter hurt and his wife's here I don't know if she plans on saying but but he went down inside that bucket and that driver was over at the pump panel that's why we have to have that person at that control panel because if those guys get in trouble

[3:06:10] they can't get down that control person has to get them down the second thing I'm asking for is the battalion chief driver or aide why do we need this first of all if you've ever driven in San Angelo you know that everybody runs red lights and it's it gets pretty crazy out there that's what you driving normal watching and being alert you have some close calls I'd venture to say everybody in this place has had a close call and said Angelo can you picture a battalion chief driving down the road lights in siren code three with six other apparatuses responding to a structure fire with them talking on the radio telling him what he's what they've got what they see in him trying just to remember who's responding when I used to be an acting battalion chief I'd have to write them down cuz I couldn't remember who dispatch dispatch because there's so many different trucks going so the first one gets there he's listing he's trying to figure out what's going on and he's still driving in our traffic trying to find the address so he gets on scene once he gets on scene the first trucks usually re there and they're fighting fire so he backs off he looks he's engaged we have a telemetry system in the back of our back wagon it's been there for a year this monitors all the accountability of every man it actually tells the men or woman's name that's in that burning building and it tells us how much air is in there that is a safety feature to keep these folks alive for one year we've had that in the back of the back truck and we hadn't used it yet because I don't have the personnel so whenever people say this is the pattern our main parent know this is a safety issue and I've been asked why is this never been brought forward I hadn't been assistant chief but two years this was one of my biggest concern is the safety of my personnel so I knew how tough the budget was I knew and I do take it very very serious where we're going to get the money to pay for this I

[3:08:12] don't take any of this lightly that's why when we had the opportunity to go get a million dollars to help us do this that's what I went and did so with that being said I don't entertain any questions from from your public or whoever we bought a ladder truck when we bought the ladder truck in 2011 and we haven't had the personnel to staff it since 2011 oh man let's get some clarification chief it's been utilized but you're not but not in the way that it was bought for us that's right yes sir it's been yes as more as a pumper truck and it is a ladder truck yes sir okay and and if we do have extra personnel on duty that day mayor we do put that fourth person over there but is it there is nobody guaranteed to be on that and very Sullivan always just had three people on that truck we have been able to shift some people at some point very very few times in the year but yesterday night so when we bought the ladder truck we knew we didn't have the staffing for it I can't answer that I wouldn't wouldn't part of the administration at that time we we have to have a ladder truck in the city I'm sure we do and so you know I don't I'm sure that it's been asked I know that she's done is asked two men but because of budget constraints we hadn't been able to get those extra personnel it's just with the with the availability of the safer grant we were able to bring some money to the table this time and hopefully get that moved forward that we've never had that opportunity to before so on the battalion go-ahead building I'll ask Mike okay I keep cutting you off I apologize I don't think I really have a question but I have a comment first of all chief Sanford I want to say thank you for taking the time to show me because I don't think I could have appreciated what you were asking here if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes and

[3:10:18] you know the safety of all of our citizens I believe is important but especially the men and women that I see sitting out here today is really important and what you showed me yesterday showed me how critical it is when you have somebody operating that ladder truck as a ladder truck how critical it is to have that person manning the pumps in that person man in the gauges because I watched a young man I don't know if he's here now but yesterday when it was being demonstrated to me I watched him have to run up that ladder check what he needed to check there then run back down and check his gauges and I kept thinking I hope he doesn't slip on that ladder you know it wasn't a very fall far fall but I kept thinking that but you know he was going up and down and and Manning it so I saw how critical that was the other thing that I saw the critical need in that what do you call it Batmobile for bat bat Chiefs got really big heads out here now you just call Batman the criticality of watching the true limit limit REE yes system to know when you have somebody in a burning building how much oxygen they have and then being able to communicate back and forth and tell you to get out now and things like that and I don't think you know I would have appreciated that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes so as you know you you know further explained today and I think when the safer grant first came up I think we appreciate it you know go get the grant see if it will work for us I don't think yet today we know where we'll get the money in three or four years but I can say without any

[3:12:22] question that I am in favor of us supporting supporting this and if I have to do fundraisers and bake sales and and stuff to try to put some money I'm willing to do that because I support this 100% I just want our first responders out there to have the best safety measures that they can have because you know when when they're fighting fires and they're going to citizens homes we have to be as concerned about their safety as we are about the people they're trying to rescue so I just appreciate it I appreciate y'all service thank you so much and I just think we need to give you the safety apparatus that you need you're welcome Billy Laine you win Billy put me down for three batches of brownies chief Sanford thank you for the phone call that we had we've known that this has been an issue for multiple years when we were going through budget and we saw the $150,000 match which dwindled down a little bit you know we were kind of uncertain exactly how that was going to play out especially for the coming up years for salaries but for what y'all did to go and find the money within yells budget to help pay for this and to go along first of all to get this over a million dollars for this I'm with Billy 100 sent this is a safety issue we've needed it these guys have needed it guys and ladies have needed it so I don't know if you made a motion yet do I have yes here thank you sir chief I appreciate the opportunity for your your half out there to show me what was going on what I told you on Friday was I believe in safety safety is number one and I think we're going to continue to do that I think the city finance and Daniel and the assistant city managers

[3:14:26] are going to be challenged and year three and four I know you've got this one handled with some savings that you're good you're going to be looking at your one but I will have to say this we've got to do what's right for the city of San Angelo what's right for your firefighters and we've got to take care of our citizens and the best way to do that is start with the first responders so thank you thank you sir chief scene I didn't get to go see all this but I was explained to the about the whole green and I want to appreciate I wouldn't tell you that I appreciate the fact that you did apply for it that you went through that whole ordeal of doing that and it is so good to see the fire department out there today it's really neat and I thank you guys and I'm glad that you're here because we're allowed to finally come out and tell you thank you so much for everything you do and how you take care of our city appreciate you guys mer if I may those are why we do what we do because they're willing to lay down for the hundred thousand people that it's in this city I think I've been here 27 and a half years I've never seen this many firefighters show up at anything like this I think that speaks for itself of how important this is this is not just something that that we thought up overnight and thought well that'd be a great thing to do I think this proves how important this really is and and I appreciate every kind word and everything you've said because it is about the safety of these men and women behind me does it include eight additional chairs if they ever come out this said I think you feel pretty confident that there's a lot of support from the individual sitting up here and the citizens sitting up here who do

[3:16:28] believe that they're one of their key responsibilities is for the safety of the citizens but also for the safety of those men and women who put their lives out there on the line for the citizens so we thank you and I also want to make sure that no one believes that the City Council or I was short-sighted when we recommended the things that we recommended during the budget session we were pretty much told on a regular basis that we didn't think we were going to get this grant so the idea that we would budget for something we didn't think we were going to get didn't make sense it did not mean that we didn't believe and did not support the firefighters the men and women are out there so I don't want anyone to believe that the vote that was made the conversation that was had was not against the firemen and fire women and all the staff we support our first responders we support what they do to add safety and security to our citizens so with that do I have a motion move to approve could we clarify that motion to say that it's contingent on the budget amendment item 7e passing as well because this will be an amendment to that fiscal year 19 budget well well yeah we didn't come out so we didn't know that that was part of it it's contingent on this because that's amendment to the budget and it's going to come in as the the entire grant and it's going to come in at - ya'll 148,000 from from us but like like Layton said we have that taken care in-house but because of the way the grants written they have to do this this budget amendment that said the motion is to approve the grant with the amendment to the budget to include the hundred and forty eight thousand etc etcetera pennies and dollars that I don't have exact and was that that would then be the new motion and the second on that motion and then it's open for public comment seemingly there is no public comment so with that we'll take a vote

[3:18:32] all in favor of passing II as well as the amendment say aye okay any opposed motion passes 7-0 where if I may say one thing thank you first of all very much - thank you - council I know this puts a burden on the city and I promise it was not intentional it was a need thank you to my personnel and there's there's one special and this is way out of line I'm sure and I'll probably get in trouble but I don't care there's one special lady that taught me how to be passionate about taking care of people and she's 80 years old today and she's home watching so happy birthday mom I would ask the council to council to sing happy birthday but I've never found middle C so I'm not gonna embarrass myself on that issue all right thank you all and thanks for hanging out with this council meeting I know you had better things to do but I think it was worth it thank you for your support and all that you do thank you alright so we're gonna go back to item D which is consider awarding our FB pk - oh three - one eighth renovation and expansion of Ruffini parking lot - Simcoe structural incorporated San Angelo Texas and the amount of two hundred seventy nine thousand six hundred fifty five budgeted for purchase in fiscal year nineteen and authorizing the city manager to execute any related documents al you're on thank you again al Torres construction manager first of all promise not to use a purple primer in this presentation I'm gonna start wearing purple eye shadow and see what you think this is a project as you know that was bid in back in July we've been going back and forth on the funding on this project you discussed it at the last council meeting and in the suggestion at the last council meeting was you put two

[3:20:35] hundred thousand dollars into this budget for as part of the budget amendment again this is tied to the budget amendment which is the next item on the agenda but this gives you a chance to look at the project again or talking about the project if you need to but it is tied to those funds so I just slide that I have is the bid amount is 279 655 we had 67 200 in our 8 2018 budget we talked about streak about giving us 200 thousand dollars out of the budget amendment and that we that would still leave us 12 455 short the comment was that we could probably find that somewhere thanks to Tina and her staff they did manage to find savings in our 2018 budget to plug that in so that that gives us what we need and then just a quick slide kind of show you what what we're getting I don't know hopefully everybody's familiar with the project but basically this is the Ruffini chapel that's being constructed now and this is a Senior Center that's existing and even though this parking lot is being built in conjunction with the seniors with the Ruffini project it primarily is going to serve the Senior Center and so that's the design is not only to beautify the area it to keep with themes of Old Town and it's being done by the Conservancy but it's also to make it a safer pedestrian route for the senior centers we're creating a pedestrian way across here and it'll make it safer for them to go through the parking lot back and forth on the Senior Center and to the other things in that area so with that if you have any questions I do if you'll go back to the first slide it's just a question for clarification as because as you know I supported doing this my question is how do we if we didn't know where the money was gonna come from how did we go out and get bid amounts when we didn't I mean I'm confused about the process here was a council driven item that was given to staff way back as far as removing this building creating a parking lot so we did not have the only way we can get a price is if we go ahead and do bid so we got authorization to move forward with the teardown of the building tear that off council authorized the old town to go

[3:22:40] ahead and put in the building and so we drew up a design and went out to get a bid we can reject the bids but we had to get a dollar amount to bring to you and then hopefully figure out a way to do that we had other options where if we needed to go bound and just simply pave the parking lot as is we could do that within the $67,000 so now you can be pretty but it would function so that that's the reasoning for us to bring you options as to how to do it one thing I would note that on my own Al's thing one thing we've been looking at as far as this project goes the parks department currently maintains all of the old town grounds in that area they also maintain the area around the Senior Center as it is now with the different beds so they would take that responsibility on as that in this area one thing that may change on this plan is those islands in the center we'll look at those we may actually eliminate those to reduce on some of the landscaped areas but - mainly because it could increase a few parking places in there and we think the parking places are while the aesthetics are important it's really important that we get as many parking places there as possible did we go out with an RFQ to get a bid or how do we was just did we ask one person to do it or no we went through the bid process and we had two bidders and the low bid is the one that we're proposing okay thank you any other questions or comments from Council with that I will entertain a motion the last item this will be contingent on the budget amendment which is next discussion so with that there's a motion second any public comment with no public comment we will take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes 7 0 okay the next item is item F consider

[3:24:45] ratifying cos'è DC's approval of a resolution authorizing the use of cells and use tax funds in an amount not to exceed $225,000 to 2 the San Angelo Chamber of Commerce for promotional and business recruitment services a project authorized under what you're on the wrong one somehow or other sorry I pull up the wrong page so I need to go to item item F just not on consent agenda sorry that's what happens when you unstaple item F first public here in an introduction of an ordinance amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1 2018 and ending September 30th 2019 for capital items grants and reimbursed expenses Tina I have for you today a budget amendment that includes a number of items this first slide shows the the projects that you approved at your last meeting which used a bulk of the excess sales tax surplus money from fiscal year 2018 so you have your animal shelter improvements at $200,000 the traffic traffic signal battery backup at $200,000 Park Street irrigation at just over 120 thousand dollars the stations 618 parking lot that we just discussed with the amounts of 200,000 plus the 12 455 river bank stabilization at $60,000 in Fort Concho improvements at 160 1000 $170 don't we need to add to that then the safer grant isn't that what we just said that's on another slide coming up yes ma'am but these will all be coming out of last cell stacks revenue do I have any questions from anyone do I have a motion to approve oh I thought more amendments I'm sorry I may have four slides and all four separate amendments so this one is to approve the additional revenue of 146 thousand dollars for the Texas Parks and Wildlife grant with the

[3:26:48] local match of $48,000 and the original local match of 117 thousand seven hundred fifty dollars there is already an amount budgeted in fund 103 for this project of three hundred fifty three thousand seven hundred fifty dollars I believe and so this additional revenue will be on top of that as well as the expense we go back through what this is one out at the lake bathroom yes make sure everybody knows what we're talking about the septic tanks putting in the source right this next amendment is to budget for the uncompensated care cost that we received from the state is basically a reimbursement for unpaid Medicaid and insurance for ambulance services and so we're using that amount to pay for the peak hours ambulance service for the fiscal year nineteen and then the contract services that are associated with obtaining this reimbursement as well as the remainder we are planning to use for a new ambulance I thought we already budgeted for the new ambulance last year believe every year in fund 501 and I think this would be an additional ambulance I didn't realize that that hasn't come up as a conversation before chief did you on because with that then you have additional staff to cover the ambulance right this is we budget to refurbish ambulances every seven years but because like what we talked about the other day unfunded government mandates we have had to change the way we do business we're not able to just refurbish ambulance anymore we have to buy a brand new ambulance and what that entails is it has a it has to be bigger because we have to secure every single thing in our ambulance including our cot and so that's a new law that we're having to meet and so this is budgeted

[3:28:52] every year for the reefer possession but since we can't do that anymore because of the law we're just we're asking for this money to go to a new ambulance instead of the refurbish station of a dish this will not be a new ambulance its man it will just replace a first out of image that we have right now my memory might be short but I know this today is October 2nd of the new budget year and we've spent several months and weeks talking about budgets and I understand how this numbers work so I'm not against this do not get me wrong I'm just concerned we just passed a budget this is October the second we spent weeks and months talking about the budgets and then all of a sudden here we are with new things it's just a little confusing not a one time funding source and we do not know the amount that we'll received until the very later part of the fiscal year and so we did mention the peak hours ambulance when we were going through our budget discussions as well as we always have to pay the consultant that gets this reimbursement for us but then with the additional funding I think this was just a suggestion from chief done that something that we couldn't attack as we had that additional you know I'm not against it I just think we need to be a lot more thorough in our budget presentations instead of on October 2nd second day of the year it coming up as a conversation does not mean I'm against it doesn't mean I don't support it I just find it interesting on day two we're already changing budgets that's all I do want to point out that what unfunded mandates to do for us the new ambulance is a two hundred fifty seven thousand previous ambulances chief there were at 150 thousand or purchase up so that unfunded mandate put us over a hundred thousand dollars now just to replace each ambulance going forward that's probably true I just want to know when we found that out because again second day of the new budget season and here we are making adjustments and I'm perfectly supportive of this I just think it ought to be have done before

[3:30:54] day two of the new year new budget that's all understood mayor okay this amendment is for the fire exhaust grant where we have a local match of twenty three thousand one hundred eighty one dollars to leverage the grant revenue of 231 thousand eight hundred and ten dollars and of course the total expense will go towards the fire exhaust exhaust projects in each of the fire stations and finally we have the budget for the safer grant the revenue of four hundred forty four thousand dollars with a local match of a hundred forty eight thousand dollars and all of the the expense for that will of course go to fire salaries any others okay with that do we have a motion to or questions before I ask for a motion they're having questions may I make a motion that we accept the amendments to the budget any public comment no public comment we will take a vote all in favor say aye edie opposed motion passes 7 0 at this point in time we will move into closed session the executive session on the provision of government code title 5 open government ethics subtitle a open government chapter 551 Open Meetings subchapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings be open under the fine sections a section 55 1.07 to deliberation regarding real property a governmental body may conduct a closed meeting 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 and B section 55 1.07 1 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 desk texas disciplinarian rules of professional conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter regarding the solid waste contract in item C section 5 v 107 41 to

[3:33:00] deliberate the annual evaluation the city manager we will be one hour there are no announcements concerning anything discussed in our closed session so we will move on to item B which is to consider approving various board nominations one is the development corporation for max puelo Prioleau SMD 3 2 an unexpired term ending February 2019 and then a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board mark hug hug 4s md5 tune unexpired term ending December 2019 do I have any any public comment but no public comment we will take a vote all in favor aye any opposed with not opposed items pass items see announcements and considerations of future agenda items do we have any okay Bryan we've been asked to normally we bring this the second meeting of October we've been asked to talk about the scheduling around November and December to make sure planning has enough time to plan for it so the second meeting in November is really the one we just need to talk about today and then we can bring back our normal discussion next week for the rest of it or next meeting so the second meeting is scheduled for the 20th of November which is two days before Thanksgiving so we thought that might be an issue so we wanted to bring it before you and see if it was if you wanted to move it to one meeting in November we've done that in the past kind of in between the two I'll be will leave it as it is for now then we're gonna need to consider whether because if we do only one in November and only one in December

[3:35:03] we got simply to be looks a little bit better because it's the 4th and the 18th so it's still a full week out I think we might can have both meetings in December so are we talking about if we did November we're talking about doing it the 6th if we just had one meeting and then no I would recommend that you do it on the 13th that way at least you could catch the most if you're gonna combine it into one meeting but if I mean if there's enough for a quorum to have two meetings then that would be good the only issue is if anything comes up last-minute and you have to cancel that meeting because of Cour it's gonna create a burden of costs on the planning department to have to send out new notices for the for the stuff that they're already dealing with and so that's the reason they've asked for us to bring this proportion of it one one meeting early I think we've satisfied that we will have enough people here to ensure quorum so we'll do the 6th and the 20th are just the six okay okay are there any other public announcements or consideration if not then I will ask for a motion for adjournment so made in favor all right

Captured 2026-07-26 · source: youtube.com/watch?v=kQGDlj8brQ0