City Council 7-6-23

[0:00:00] chaplain my art mavrotti here to lead us in both please stand this is bower heads almighty God I lift up all who are in an elected office and pray that you would protect them and give them wisdom knowledge and acute discernment for the office they hold I lift up our military and First Responders and pray for their protection both on and off duty establish three steps Lord strengthen them and equip them for the many important decisions that must be made today and bless their families amen I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one State under God one and indivisible there are no proclamations or recognitions for today so we will move into public comment issues are concerns not on the regular agenda may be raised by the public at this time citizens should speak from the podium address all comments to the Diaz Begin by stating their name and address or single member district number and limit their remarks to less than three minutes do we have individuals in the audience today who would like to offer public comment if so please come forward hello good morning mayor good morning Council Monica Ramos assistant director of downtown San Angelo Inc we would like to thank the city of San Angelo for sponsoring our Star-Spangled Banner concert and fireworks event this event

[0:02:03] was a huge show we've already received an outpour of positive feedback about the fireworks display it was a wonderful thing to see so many people thousands of people within the river stage and in proximity for this event we were also pleased to have the presence of a special guest Congressman August fluger to pay tribute to First Responders at our event and we'd also like to thank the AAP Texas Foundation City staff volunteers volunteer groups our partnering organizations like the Lions Club and the San Angelo Hispanic Heritage Museum and anyone else involved in helping make this event a success we really look forward to hosting another spectacular event next year so thank you again very much thank you Monica further public comment good morning mayor council my name is Tony Jones current address is on Green Meadow single member district four the statement of concern that I would like to express this morning has to do with future development in San Angelo Texas residential primarily in the past couple of years the development community in the city of work together in designing and implementing stormwater ponds Retention Ponds in new subdivisions I put I think the first two in and elicited early on an agreement from the city that they would take ownership of these two ponds the original uh stormwater manual was written in 2011 and it stated that the city would take ownership of these ponds and utilize them as a public utility if you will for the entire city of San Angelo in order to help keep the

[0:04:08] water clean so I built I think the first two ponds the city agreed to take them they were built to the city's design and so I really have no further I have no further concern personally for myself because the developable land that I still own will be serviced by the two ponds I've already put in so I'm done with these storm water pumps but currently the staff is looking at over a hundred Lots maybe closer to 200 Lots residential lots that will go into the city of San Angelo and provide tax income Ad nauseam in perpetuity and so staff is staff is declared along with the legal that the city really does not have to take ownership of these ponds we're required to put them in by the way each of those ponds cost me personally about four hundred thousand dollars so these new lots that are being developed that are going to go into San Angelo in these new subdivisions elsewhere it doesn't have anything to do with me are going to require these developers to if the city does not take ownership of them they're going to require these developers to own those ponds in perpetuity and so the result of that will be primarily for developers that have the wherewithal to understand what that means is they will be required to set up homeowners associations and require people to pay monthly into an association to take care of that pond so I would just ask you in the future to be aware of this and consider this I don't know how well homeowners associations are going to go over in Lakeview America Grape Creek

[0:06:13] anywhere in the ETA etj uh you know we've been fighting for years affordable home ownership and now we're faced with having to primarily in the city of San Angelo create homeowner associations to pay for these ponds if the city does not take them and the pond that I built in Southwest San Angelo is for the benefit of everybody in Tom Green County according to the city it helps our insurance rates because the water's cleaner and TCEQ is not banging on us so that's my comment thank you thank you Tony further public comment seeing none we will move on into the agenda before we open up and ask council members if they want to pull anything from the consent agenda I am going to say that I want to table the whole conversation on strs today we will not be dealing with that line item on the agenda so if you're here to comment or be a part of the conversation on strs today it will not be discussed with that we'll move into the consent agenda I'm going to start at and see if anybody wants to pull Larry Karen Lucy no ma'am I'd like to pull item D and E um nothing to pull Tommy okay with that may I have Harry's online Harry do you have anything you want to pull from the consent agenda no ma'am I'm good okay thank you with that may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda moved by Tom second by Lucy public comment concerning the agenda items see none will take a vote all those in favor say aye aye thanks Harry

[0:08:20] motion is approved seven to zero we'll move into item D consider ratifying a lease agreement between the city of San Angelo's Development Corporation and careers GPS LLC and authorizing the board president or the designee to execute all necessary documents I really just want you to talk about what this is publicly I'm sorry we had a so I think we had a problem with some of the supporting documentation so I apologize for that these are both D and E are both incubator clients that we're proposing to lease space to in the BRC so can you tell me about them what do they do no I wasn't prepared to talk about what it is say too I hate to approve something I know nothing about I understand they're small clients going in taking a small footprint in the incubator and we're trying to assist them with uh their efforts to develop their business and uh so I don't have background on each of these companies when these things go in typically how long are they in there I mean are they in there it's just as a stepping stone to go on to it further yes sir they occupy space at favorable rates and companies have been in there many years and the idea is that this becomes a stepping stone and they they move on aren't they limited to three years by by uh terms of the lease that that that's on the lease yeah maximum they can stay is three years sir I believe that's the case they can graduate sooner if they you know if which the hope is to get their business up and running uh and be able to then afford a space on their own yes sir the idea is to give them a a safe place at low rates to uh kind of stimulate that

[0:10:25] activity become stable and then move on to uh market rate type activities uh in the market one that that I can think of specifically that was that has now purchased a building in San Angelo Centurion planning and design they were in there for maybe a couple of years so you know it it in my opinion it's it's a worthy a worthy investment on our part to make that space available to them I'm not questioning the worthiness of it I'm questioning and just would like to be informed about what this these new businesses are because obviously we think that they could be good I just kind of like to know who they are and that is that is my fault we had a busy week and and I didn't get the documentation on this in my hands so I apologize and if if we need a table then that's what we need to do I don't want to hold up the process necessarily but again I can't vote for something I don't know anything about yes go ahead Tina so it's in the packet the back it's in the that's from the coast of DC meeting yeah that was the problem it made it into their packet but not ours reading from the coast of DC pack career GPS LLC is owned and operated by Vicky Taro Miss Terrell is career coach and trainer and Leadership coach she is dedicated to helping businesses create business environment that is Prof profitable and purposeful she provides training and group training session one-on-one training and Group Training sessions um we see Vicky around regularly she's very nice to work with and a contributor

[0:12:29] in in the BRC is here okay thank you Watson woodlaw p l c l c is operated by Whitney Watson wood she is seeking admission to the incubator program to establish a new law firm in San Angelo she will be leasing an office suite where she will help her clients with Legacy and estate planning directive to physician probate preparing Wills trust durable power of attorney medical power of attorney and corporate law and I believe she's here she is and we know her from her work at saisd so she's been here multiple times representing our school districts so we know her and are excited for this opportunity for you Whitney thank you thank you for the update we just need to know thank you I'm sorry for the stumbling we got it okay with that may I have a motion to approve item D and item e so moved by Tommy second second by Lucy anyone in the audience who would like to make comment on items D or e Whitney you may come forward Whitney Watson wood with watsonwood law pllc I just want to say thank you for offering this kind of opportunity to help support small businesses when you're looking at opening a small business and being an entrepreneur the idea of operational costs and all of those things going into it can be intimidating and it is wonderful to have a resource like this and I have to say um thank you to miss Desiree Johnson and her entire team for kind of walking me through some of those steps and as a former member of San Angelo ISD too I also want to say that I see these

[0:14:31] opportunities for some of our children that are entrepreneurs too like what a great resource so I want to say thank you and I'm looking forward to it and appreciate it and also looking forward to see what other things come from it too from other entrepreneurs in our community so thank you any other public comment saying none let's take a vote all those in favor of approving items D and E hi Gary how would you like to vote yes with that we have a 7-0 vote to approve items D and item e we will now move into our regular agenda comments regarding items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above applicants proponents and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit their remarks to less than five minutes we'll start with item a consider approving Ada policies related to service animals reasonable modifications and contractors and Licensing Teresa yes ma'am thank you Teresa James City attorney but in this role also the Ada coordinator these policies come from the work of the Ada advisory committee that has been created I think it's important to not only have legislation that requires us to do certain things related to the Ada but also to incorporate policies into our own system to help promote and sustain that culture of accommodation that really the legislation is intended to have so these policies have been they were drafted by me initially based on a number of the trainings and the different policies that I've reviewed and then reviewed by the committee who offered suggestions and changes we do have Sharon Troy here who is a member of the committee so I would welcome her to make any comments as she sees necessary and I appreciate you being here Sharon so again the purpose of these policies it does align with the Ada training that our staff has been receiving we've trained over 300 of our staff members our front line employees most of our directors are still a few that are out

[0:16:33] there that missed the first training that will have to come to another training all of our fourth floor Administration has been trained and then all of our managers so we really are making big strides in training making sure everybody's on the same page related to the responsibilities we have these policies also help ensure compliances staff changes there's a lot of training that you take whenever you're a new employee at the city of San Angelo one of the things you do receive though is policy handbook and we want these policies to be something that people Not only would receive training on formally but that they could review on their own so that they know what is expected of them and it also creates clear processes related to responses to requests so we want our citizens and our employees to know if there is a problem what is the process that we're going to go through to fix that problem for them so I want to go through these policies specifically partly because I'm a teacher at heart and I want everybody to who's watching this to understand what our responsibility is as well as theirs in some cases but for service animals individuals with disabilities may be accompanied by service animals any place the general public may go that includes places where Health codes might otherwise prohibit animals from being service animals are still allowed in those those spaces there are no identification or special tags that we will require we do know some service animals do have vests and other forms of identification that is completely discretion of the owner of that animal and it's not something that is required or that we can require and we can't ask that disruptive service animals be removed and if there's a question as to whether or not an animal is a service animal versus for instance a comfort animal these are the only two questions that we can ask and our staff has been trained these are the two things you can ask to determine whether or not this is a service animal the first is the animal a service animal required because of a disability and second what work or task has the animal been trained to perform we can't ask them to demonstrate the skill we can't ask them what is your disability we can just ask the question what kind of work do they perform for you the second policy is a reasonable accommodation policy I think as most of our staff knows now that we do have an

[0:18:36] obligation to make reasonable accommodations um if we are requested to do so and if we have you know we're within the parameters that we're required to do so so this policy will help ensure staff knows of that requirement per the policy directors have the authority to deny a request if the request fundamentally Alters the nature of the service program or activity I wanted to make sure that it was a director who had that Authority and not every single employee to maintain some consistency managers or directors have the authority to deny requests if there's a legitimate safety concern and the reason managers are added to this portion of the policy is these things often come up in the middle of a program where a director may not be available but a manager is more readily available so if there's a safety concern being raised by any accommodation we Grant we can deny the request for the accommodation at that time any denial does need to be in writing and the person shall be directed to Coast tx.us backslash Ada webpage or to myself as the Ada coordinator so they have information about filing agreements the reason it needs to be in writing is there are statutory deadlines as far as filing a complaint with the Department of Justice as well as a deadline within our own policy our grievance policy as to when they need to file those grievances so we want to make sure everybody's clear on when that time clock starts and the third policy I want to get your approval on today is one that deals with contractors and Licensing this one really is predominantly for the purchasing department to ensure that we make sure our process for purchasing doesn't discriminate in any way and that anybody that we select in accordance with a contract doesn't have any policies that are discriminating against people for the activities they're performing on our behalf and also IT addresses a little bit that we're not going to operate any licensing program or create a program or activity rules that discriminate one thing during the training I'm asking people to do is really pay attention to the rules that we have in place for programs and to make sure one that they're necessary because a lot of our rules were written like I was in high school which is a

[0:20:38] long time ago and um second some of them do have this added effective like causing some forms of discrimination that really aren't intended or necessary so we are evaluating that on a day-to-day basis but again I did want to put it into this policy there will be other policies that are coming we're just not quite ready to have those to you one is Communications policy so we're really evaluating the kinds of communications accommodations one that the community is asking us for and two that we have the ability to provide so that one should be coming as well as the committee is going to be asked to re-look at our grievance process to make sure that that's not too cumbersome that all those steps are necessary and that it complies with the federal statutes so I'll be happy to answer any questions about that you have questions or comments from city council Larry Karen Lucy no ma'am Tom yes so Teresa just some I go into a situation I saw just last week and this goes into the ticketing and back to the 80s some of the very first things if you if and if a person buys a handicapped seat or something other under Ada they turn around they sell those seats they can sell those to somebody who's not handicapped but that does take up and feel space I saw it just last week where six people were sitting somewhere five of them had no need to be in there one of them did but they when they got questioned they got those tickets from was sold to them under from somebody that bought them under an ADA situation so I see that happen and I I see how that could be abused quite a bit also saw a couple pets last week in Santa Fe and they were had on the service dog they were pups Labrador pups which is great you know so everybody wanted to go pet him and I said okay so you know you're training them or something yeah well we're not for sure if they're going to be that so you know my question is at times we know the questions we can ask we're going to need somebody to go to when we have to validate and it's going to be there'll be on-site concerts

[0:22:41] whatever that may be so as you go through and you make these fix and say rules regulations guidelines we're going to need a I would say a hotline phone number somebody calling if that's you I get it but I was just say there's some things that are really a gray area here that can be abused from either side of the fence yeah I think we've had some conversations about the ticketing guidelines from the Department of Justice within our committee and I do have similar concerns that there's a lots of opportunity for abuse of those new rules you are supposed to provide companion tickets when you provide a seat so sometimes that's who's taking up those other seats for people who are companions to the person as far as the service animals are concerned and people come to me frequently now asking those kinds of questions you know there's a case where a person brings their dog out to the ball fields and they say it's a service animal but the dog doesn't seem to do anything but play fetch with the person so again having making sure they're asking those questions and ensuring that um we're not violating anybody's rights to privacy or any of those things when we're trying to ascertain those things but I am available and having answered a number of questions in that regard the question is how does one get the placket the paperwork the whatever the animal wears that says they're a service dog there's no required training and there's no required certification I can train my own animal to provide a service for myself and that dog would constitute a service animal as long as it's trained to provide something that's related to a disability that I have it qualifies as a service animal but there's no proof that in fact it is a service animal or that that animal is in service to someone who needs that support I don't think we really have a problem with too many people trying to hold out their pets as being service animals a lot of them are just like it's just my dog and I'm just wanting to bring it here we have some people who bring little dogs into like the annex when they're paying their

[0:24:42] bills and if they're holding them in their arms and they're not causing disruption you know staff just pretty much deals with the person and lets them go on but yeah it there's no certification program we can't ask them for any kind of identification that is clearly written in the law with that further questions yes Tommy um Teresa I was looking at the city web page I noticed as the um on the landing page it Scrolls through there and there is clearly a place on their to do something uh with respect to Ada my question is I wonder if we should have a permanent button there's looks like some of the these buttons to the right are permanent buttons that don't rotate that we need to have specifically for Ada questions that leads to our agreements page Brian and I are looking at different ways we can make that page more accessible he did create that short link I think those buttons are set at the site and maybe he can come out and explain that a little better but the thing that we're working on really with our website and I had lunch with the folks at Lighthouse who are fabulous if you haven't been out there to see what they do and talk to them you should go because it's really fantastic and we just asked them talk to us about what you guys need you know we talked about Braille and they're not interested in Braille they consider that kind of an antique language but they are really interested in making sure that our home page is easily easily accessible by a web page reader and Brian's been working and Laura life been working really hard on that so I'll let him address those questions morning um so to address your question um all of the icons and everything on the desktop homepage we are locked into we have an older website with a new vendor and so a lot of that stuff cannot be interchanged at without redoing the entire website um we do have an ADA link under the popular tab if you're on a mobile device Ada is the first button on those we have we do have control of those but when it comes to changing out some of those permanent buttons that are on the home

[0:26:45] page we don't have the capability at this this time to do that so videos on the iPhone I mean yes it is yes yes ma'am for the questions comments it was that your name again Brian Groves communications director talking to the mind yeah I have that color yeah thank you for helping I've had a good evening there what district is he here okay okay waited for that for five years okay all right with that then may I have a motion for approving item a and the Ada policies as presented today some motion made so I'll move I think by Tom and then that must be seconded by Tommy I think Larry go ahead go ahead and give it to Larry and I'll second it I'll make motion thank you and thank you with that public comment seeing none hearing none we will take a vote on item a all of those in favor say aye aye Harry I saw the lips moving I think it was a yes I think I heard it yes so that all right thank you that is a 7-0 approval we will now move into Item B which is discussion of short-term rentals which is the item that I announced earlier we are pulling from the agenda not having a discussion today and I repeat that because there's so many cities who've tried to create a new ordinance which has resulted in multiple lawsuits so at this point we want to just stick with where we're at and we will at some point address the short-term rentals ordinance item C is consider proving a proposal to allocate the 2023 cdbg and home Grant funds for programs and

[0:28:48] projects and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute the applications required certifications related documents and annual funding agreement for the approximate allocation of 660 thousand dollars 142 of cdbg and 313 168 home Grant funds Bob you are on good morning Council our project proposals so follow our Five-Year Plan which includes five key objectives and corresponding goals they are providing decent housing increasing home ownership revitalizing deteriorated neighborhoods increasing of the affordable housing stock and assisting special needs citizens so every all our proposals all our goals and objectives are met by these uh report by this proposal okay just to make sure when we say 125 homes we're talking about over the five-year window we're not talking about an annual number that is correct for example our goal is 125 we have five years to do that we have 121 so far so we're going to exceed that goal there's a few that are still pending or hope to meet that goal in the next two years uh here's a look at our funding Trend uh you can see that our funding has been relatively stable for the last five years however we will see a slight decrease in both cdbg and home grants we're going to see a five seven thousand decrease in cdbg and a 32 000 decrease in home grants that is because well that's basically uh the federal government they decide on what the allocation is going to be and uh that's basically just the federal budget the president's budget that's what happens and it trickles down to us that's how the outside we come up with our numbers so we have no control of that unfortunately here's a proposal for our home funds we're asking for 31 317 for

[0:30:52] administration eighty thousand eight hundred fifty one for first-time home buyers down payment assistance 50 000 for mhfr special needs tenant-based rental assistance and 151 000 for new home construction through our Toto what happens to be Galilee CDC can you walk through go back please can you walk through the Galilee CDC issue of the drop in total dollars it's basically yes the drop is that was a huge trouble that's because last year we actually had some access funds from previous years and we allocated those funds for that uh the 151 is more appropriate based on the allocation we got this year so that would be a more historic dollar amount that's correct for cdbg funds we're asking for 132 000 28 for a General Grant Administration 115 517 for Rehab admin program delivery 127 000 for minor repairs 110 000 for emerging emergency housing repairs and 130 597 for a debt payment for the section 108 loan which happens to uh which paid for the producers Park and the renovation of uh real Visa Park I always ask you when is that paid up 23rd August 2030. so we're getting there I think he knows that date I was going to say he's going to say yeah yeah just to remind Council we used uh we used to provide a lot of Social Services we won't be able to do that we didn't do that because of the section 108 loan we'll be able to re-engage in a future years once we get that money back 20 30. Yes Lewis of the housing rehab Administration what does that entail I'm sorry again on the

[0:32:55] housing rehab Administration in the housing rehab program yes uh we yeah we use a we're allowed to uh take a certain amount of money from our certain lines for administration one is General Administration which is based on 20 percent of the grant the other one is program delivery the cost of having someone manage that program go out and do inspections uh do the the specs um which is the big one for us by the way we have a construction manager that does that for us uh Steve Diaz very good at it and that's what he does that helps pay for his salary and and um it's about things that we do equipment and that kind of thing to deliver those services for these programs when you look at the total cost of administration the 132 000 plus 115 it really comes to almost 30 percent of the total number that would seem to be a high number it is high uh but we have to try to guess much Grant funds to pay for administration otherwise it comes from General funds that we don't we surely don't want to do that um but remember this too that we have a lot of other programs that this that the staff carries on that doesn't pay Administration so we have we have to cover that in that admin somehow and that's how we do it and that explain that to me again uh what I'm saying is uh for example um we have 130 2000 for administration um we have Indigent cremation that that we have to cover that we have to take action on and and manage that program there's no Administration for that so we have to somehow cover the administration for those activities so this helps to do that otherwise it comes from General funds we certainly don't want to do that Lucy go ahead so uh is this through the five-year period or just every or is this the one time yeah this is just for one year uh like I said The Five-Year Plan provides you the uh uh the the guideline if you will for

[0:34:57] how you're going to expend those funds for those five years um and we can change that whenever you need to it's up to the council we have to go and get a uh ask permission from HUD uh to get to do an amendment if we need to change the any of these goals and objectives but the admin is set based on the percentage um the 132 is based on 20 of the um of the Grant and then HUD home funds uh they met they cap it at 10 so that's where that's where we're set at they're just we got to pay staff we buy equipment we're gonna buy a new truck we have to do those kind of things so it is high ma'am you're right well and I and I bring it up and we talk about it because in fact obviously this is a program to really help people in need and it certainly takes away from the actual cost of or the monies available to do the repairs so on the other hand you can't do the repairs if you don't have the staff so it's the egg before the hand the hand before the egg or whatever that cliche is but um there anyway it's high we would take a general um from the general fund if you're interested we'd be glad to take it and increase the numbers on the number of houses we do so anyway um that's it's just a tough situation you're right and it's not just us it's everybody else you know I hear it by the way second hold on a sec I didn't see Karen um can you just expand for my edification the final line item code compliance uh yes you just had a dedicated employee how does that work so we do we have a dedicated employee that uh that that they spend their time specifically on the target neighborhoods to ensure that we help maintain those property the property maintenance um it's one of the one of the eligible activities that we've decided to take on years back we've been doing this for

[0:36:59] about 15 years or so um otherwise again it'd be nothing they it's just to ensure that we have someone that can respond to our requirements quickly and they can kind of focus their efforts in those areas to help you know keep maintain those neighborhoods one person that's not a person it's just a it pays for one person uh but basically what we do is so that's up there on salaries too then actually it does not that's actually it pays for it does pay for the salary but not for administration it's strictly for that code officer it's um that cash Department paying that code officer would obviously be doing things other than this job that is correct so it's a broader Code Compliance person who has other responsibilities in terms of Code Enforcement uh what he does well he basically the way we do it is we uh we put our officers in sectors and one officer in a sector that strictly is a uh CBG area and that's what he focuses on he does not leave that area that's all he does he does his he does his routine so and he's plenty busy obviously you know it's in our areas that we uh that are deteriorating their neighborhoods so that's what that is thank you ma'am yes go ahead Larry is that service on demand or is it a Rover sorry sir is is that Code Compliance on demand for instance a call by a complaintant or is that person roving looking for non-compliance he actually does both well he responds to complaints and you also uh does uh Patrols in the area yeah any other questions on this page okay and like I mentioned we do do other projects uh we have Indigent cremation we have homeless emergency Sheltering we provide a rapid rehousing program we provide rental assistance through ARP

[0:39:02] the some money that was allocated dollar amounts for each one of these categories that we spend oh wow what's the question I assume it's coded so because would think it would be coded so that you would have an annual number that says okay last year our Indigent cremation dollars were X this year we I mean I would some of those things I think we'd be very interested in understanding historically what the dollars associated with those are Indigent cremation is about twenty five thousand dollars homeless emergency Sheltering that came from uh during uh storm Yuri and it comes carried on after that that averages about ten thousand dollars or so to 10 to 15. a Continuum of Care is a hundred and eighty thousand because that's a big number 180 000. so that's a grant that came in and we oversee the the grant uh myself and uh one of my staff members and the Housing Authority actually carries out the activity itself what we do to provide some oversight management of that of that Grant in fact we just finished a um an audit from that from the HUD uh public housing authority um ARP is the funds that we got through the American Rescue plan and it's about 400 000 for about five years um well 400 over five years about five years yes ma'am we should be done by five years we will go through that program by then although it extends the extent of another couple years but we should be done in five years um Agnes weatherization there's a grant that we get uh every year it runs anywhere from 15 to 25 000 we have one staff member that kind of handles that for us infield housing is 200 000 that uh the council approved a couple years back and then the other one is the royalties is about that change depending how much how many policies they sell and I think we've gotten anywhere I think

[0:41:04] the high is about thirty thousand and the low is about fifteen thousand so it changes every year depending how many uh policies they've sold not royalty funds we use for our emergency repair it combines so for example we go to a respond to a situation where someone needs a ADA Bathroom but their sewer line is broken we can use some of this money for the sewer line and it allows us more money for the ADA Bathroom that's how we also we leverage those funds so we do these things in addition to the our cdbg and home Grant funds it's been a while since we've had a presentation on this service line warranties and I think at some point we ought to go back out and publicly talk about that program actually um I just got about last month I believe I got an update on that so I could come to council uh maybe next Council agenda I can tell you what they've done so far and what we've what we've used those funds for so um are there two different service line programs or am I am I dreaming that we get uh I get things in the mail from from time to time and they're they're two different I guess aligned to her and there's actually uh several companies that do this uh we work with service like warranties of America of course uh we responds for them is what we do um and uh they uh they provide a royalty every year there's another company that also does the same thing but they're now affiliated with the city we don't okay so we don't sponsor them okay we need that presentation because the citizens don't understand multiple people doing it right and the one originally presented was obviously from the city we just need a presentation on that we need to update the citizens on why it is what it means what it can do what it doesn't do Etc and then by the way they did meet the million dollar policy mark this year so

[0:43:07] Lucid hey Bob on the ARP rent rent assistance how much money was allocated for that or how much have you put out or how much money have you helped people with sure well actually we started this year uh we is actually two main programs one is to end veteran homelessness as you remember me coming to you to uh several months back uh that uh that's about six hundred thousand thousand dollars for renovation of a facility and case management for our veterans and once we get that done we I think we just gave him the notice to proceed that should be done by Christmas hopefully and we'll just start seeing that come next next winter we start seeing folks getting um getting the case management getting them into the place and then at that point we can go to we can actually communicate that petition to be recognized as a city that ended veteran homelessness that's kind of our goal a long-term goal and the other and then the ARP rental assistance that's 400 000 that the staff is managing so we had a million a little over a million dollars total and that's how we split it up further questions on this page okay move on oh basically that's it uh if approved we will uh we'll take this and uh craft our annual action plan which will come to you next Council through the consent agenda and then it goes forwarded to HUD for their approval that's how it works so we just need the update that I requested on the warranties and that doesn't obviously that doesn't mean we can't approve this on the next consent agenda but I want to make sure we don't forget to make that part of a future agenda do that the Citizens need that they need to know the difference between the multiple companies and exactly what that warranty if you purchase it means certainly all right so with that may I have a

[0:45:12] motion for approval Tommy made the motion second by Karen okay and with that public comment saying none will take a vote those in favor say aye aye aye motion is approved seven zero our next item is item D consider resolution supporting the friends of Fairmont cemeteries fundraising efforts to replace the fence and make landscape improvements at Fairmont Cemetery along the northern Boundary Avenue and Frontage Carl good morning Carl white Parks and Recreation we're asking Council to adopt a resolution that would support friends of fairmont's fundraising efforts to do some landscape improvements along Avenue in the northern Frontage of the cemetery the winter storm from a couple of winters ago killed a bunch of the shrubs and that started the discussion about doing some improvements visual improvements along that Frontage the boards had discussed this at a couple meetings and I think a committee meeting or two so they wanted to move forward with some fundraising with the help of friends of Fairmount we think the project will cost about a quarter million the project would include replacing the entire fence except the entrance matching the fence to match the entrance fencing which is an ornamental black tubing fencing and they haven't quite decided what to do with the space between the fence and the curb could either raise the curb and level out the grounds similar to what Calvary cemeteries done adjacent to Fairmount Cemetery and one thought is to move the fence from its current location behind the live oak trees there's about 18 live oak trees that front Avenue end and if we ever to put a walkway along Avenue in

[0:47:14] you could actually go into the cemetery through a gate on level ground so you could continue some pedestrian access along that way so we're asking Council to adopt this resolution to let them do some fundraising part of this resolution does let friends of Fairmount receive the old fencing and try to sell that for to make some money there's there's some old chain link fencing there which doesn't have much value but there is an older fence which is 60 to 80 years old and it's it's kind of unique but the city doesn't have any use for it but it could raise some money does that mean removing the shrubs we've already removed several of the shrubs we haven't quite decided which ones to leave there are some nice roses that are still there that will likely keep but the board hasn't quite decided about what shrubs to keep this is really just talking about the fence itself not the landscape it's right next to the fence meaning the shrubs this would be the the Project's entirely including the fence and some landscape improvements but they haven't quite decided what the landscape improvements would be as they're doing that most of them are that old euonymus type hedge and it's dead so there are pieces of it that are still alive here and there but yeah as they took that fence out those shrubs would go out all right so questions for Carl input all right so with that may I have a motion to approve a resolution made by Larry seconded by by Karen public comment concerning this item see none we will take a vote all those in favor of approving the resolution please say aye aye aye motion is approved seven zero we'll move on to item e which is considered resolution supporting the private fundraising efforts to replace the modular Skate Park equipment at Bart

[0:49:18] DeWitt Park Carl again you're on this is a similar item allowance private sector to do some fundraising to replace some equipment at the skate park quick orientation we call it the downtown skate park it's on the southwest side of downtown along the river between Irving Street and Randolph Street by the YMCA this was the city's a lot let me just ask the question are people still using that Park that skate park and I think we have one or a few folks here from the the group that wanted to do the fundraising that could speak to that this is the city's first skate park dating back to 2003 the cost was 68 000 and that included the modular equipment and the fencing the concrete work and the signs an interesting note is that the funding came from the sale of the old nifs amusement park train uh mayor JW still had that train you know you wish we had it people constantly ask where that they went they do mayor J.W long is very instrumental in making that happen 20 years ago who bought it I don't remember I think they were from out of town the equipment has required maintenance over the years but we kept it usable and safe but it is nearing the end of its life a quick look at the the equipment from a distance it looks pretty good it's been kept up but you see it's seen significant wear especially close up being loved to death so the local Advocates are willing to raise the funding we anticipate the cost to be up towards 120 dollars 120 000 it could be less there would be additional site

[0:51:20] improvements including some additional concrete work drinking fountain and some benches just a quick look they are interested in uh concreting over this where we kept it grass and the city staff could help with installing the new equipment and doing some of the improvements that I mentioned and the increased cost for maintenance once everything's done is only about two thousand dollars annually so not much and I think Mr Little's here he may want to speak about the improvements forward elements mayor members of the council my name is Kevin little uh I'm born and raised here in San Angelo I'm a professional skater and also inline skate instructor I actually met with the council here about 20 years ago when we were petitioning initially to get the skate park and we appreciate the you know City doing what they could and providing us that skate park then and um two-year question earlier about new members of the community still utilize the skate park that answer is yes you know there's a very large skating community of inline skaters skateboarders scooter riders that do frequent that skate park on a regular basis and being with the Park's now 20 years old due to the weathering and constant usage of the park it has broken down over time the pictures provided don't really go into full detail about some of the weathering and deterioration that shows on those ramps but you know seeing some of the people utilizing the skatepark every day the performance of the park is compromise by having some of these Parks deteriorating and they are past their expiration period the actual manufacture of the initial ramps have since actually gone out of business and they're actually no longer manufacturing ramps that's how old some of these are

[0:53:23] so what we're trying to do is fundraise some of the necessary funds to replace some of these parts that are showing weathering that are deteriorating and you know the members of the local skating Community have voiced their opinions on parts that they would like to replace them with and we've been doing several Grassroots organizational fundraising events to promote the skating events and draw attention to the need to have these replaced because the skating Community is so vibrant within the community and it does provide them a positive physical outlet for their time and it gives them an alternative for some of these individuals that may not necessarily fit into a team sports activity and gives them a place to you know participate in you know skating in a safe and friendly you know community and being that the Riverside skate park it's in a very close proximity to other you know downtown features such as the YMCA the the boss the um the art community such as the um uh lots of things downtown the Kids Kingdom the art museum art and uncommons places there's so many things within a close proximity to that skate park that we feel the the renovations to the skate park are vital for that um we've held several um events over the years that have brought lots of Commerce to the city and a lot of outside patrons have come in to participate in some of these skating events that we've held and we're actually having one on Saturday and you know we have several different communities of skaters coming all the way from Dallas and Houston coming out here to participate in these events so it does draw you know quite a bit of people that you know bring money to the restaurants and to the hotels and things like that so you know we're doing

[0:55:26] everything we can reaching out to members within the local community such as you know City Lumber McCoys West Texas steel to see if they would be able to donate you know construction materials to help us and you'll bring innovating the skate park we're doing you know t-shirt sales car washes you know coin drives and things like that to try to raise what little funds we can and also reaching out to other non-profit organizations like YMCAs the Boys and Girls Clubs Tony Hawk foundations and other um similar individuals that give large donations to skate park Renovations and we're using pretty much every type of possible way that we can raise funds to you know renovate these parks and we know the city's probably already allocated a good majority of their um you know fundage for this year but if there's any type of leftover you know money at the end of the year that y'all could possibly allocate to help us in renovating some of these you know part you know obstacles to keep us up and running on those parks and keep us safe you know it would be greatly appreciated so questions from Council comments Larry I'm not a skateboarder so I'm basically ignorant are you kidding it's Tommy Hebert I can still get you some just there's still time in the day there is at least one other skateboard park in town is that correct yes sir there's one over on Kirby uh skate park over on 29th Street which there is that skate park and it is good that there is two different locations for the large you know skating community that we have in town and that Park is great but it's not showing near the amount of deterioration that the Riverside Park has unfortunately it's much newer then it's newer and it's concrete so it doesn't weather nearly as much as some of these metal prefabricated Escape Park pieces that break down over time and start

[0:57:30] showing warping because of the weathering and you know rust and things like that so do you think the two fulfill the need for the community uh specifically I'm thinking about the Southwest it can always there's there's a such a huge community of skaters I mean there's been talks about even utilizing some of the other you know having a third Park you know other areas of town because there's other communities that don't because some of the local skaters are younger ages than you know 16 and younger they have to commute to some of these skate parks I remember when I was young I had to skate you know three to four miles to get to the skate park to participate and practice it was either that or skate some of the you know local businesses or abandoned buildings and we know how people don't appreciate that so um that's kind of like the more parks that we have available for skaters makes it easier for them to participate and then also prevents any type of abuse towards you know private businesses and things like that or schools so yeah they can we can always have more I would say that so it could be a temporary retention pond we could turn that retention Pawn into a skate park easily just give us some concrete so I'm sure the that would go over well right so it's you know just looking at all the equipment that's listed there I don't see why you don't go and talk to every orthopedic surgeon in town and Shannon Hospital actually I I'm in physical therapy right now and I totally just yesterday in your benefit to keep us up and running because it's just kind of adding towards your uh he makes money doing that exactly yeah when you hit here call here yeah there you go other further questions or comments that's probably a question from for Carl uh I know you've been active with the park dedications that we've been talking about I wondered if an additional skate

[0:59:34] skateboarding Park is is in the mix I would say if there's dollars I'm not sure where you're going to find those dollars when we have tremendous amount of need just to maintain the existing parks in the state that they're in money is always tight and we have lots of improvements with existing Carl go ahead and add to that conversation yes that is true when we we were conceptualizing what Valley View Park could look like we did not factor in a skate park but that could be added back into that concept of what that part could could be developed that's that's close to your district is it in your District Valley View oh I think it is that's me it's in the southwest there might a lot of you we're sitting here there might be some space there at meta Creek Park if we wanted to add something that would take away some field space No Doubt but anyway but I'll bring it back to the fact that we don't have any money to do that we can dream all day and it's nice too but right now we're dealing with fiscal responsibility and right now I'm not sure where that if you're having to come and fundraise to get this one redone I'm not sure where we think the money would come for a brand new one all right because if we had the money 120 000 right now to do it ourselves but we don't have it's the reason we're going into fundraising it's the resolution thanks the resolution thank you any further questions or comments hey with that may I have a motion for approving the resolution for the skate park I'm gonna move by Tommy second by Larry public comment saying none will take a vote all those in favor say aye aye aye motion is approved seven zero now what I think we will do because the next item F I believe is going to be a

[1:01:36] very long conversation so I'm going to say let's take a 10 minute break and we'll come back and dive into the schedule of fees and charges [Music] 56 a.m and we will move into item F which is considered a resolution amending the schedule of fees and charges to amend charges for building and construction related fees business related fees fees for abatement of junk and impoundment and sale of property planning related fees Cemetery fees and facility use fees so Tina I think you're on with this presentation we're going to start with code compliance I'll get it started introducing these days first off we're going to look at removal of fees for abatement of junk these are just services that are no longer offered and why is that I would have to ask the department director to answer that question Bob Salas we get a lots of emails and phone calls about junk so it'd be interesting to understand the removal of it as a fee and as a service I guess okay um I should go through these real quick uh take it and found any personal property Network advertisers I'll tell you what I don't have a history behind this I do have uh my supervisor here who's has the history on these things so uh Rudy you want to come up here and see if you can light on these with code compliance since I've been here we've never done any of these uh empowerment and sale of properties as far as the 370 260 per six yard dump truck we don't have a six yard dump truck we do have a 12 yard dump trailer

[1:03:40] we just need to clean up the language on that one specifically instead of removing it it needs to be cleaned up is that correct well these need to be specifically removed and then the other addressed through an amendment we just don't okay all right we'll keep going through them we do have on the next Slide the 12-yard dump truck going through these so go back oh I'm sorry go line by line yeah that's basically it we've never provided these uh fees I don't know uh where they came from tell you the truth so we decided not to even deal with them we don't need to have them in place as far as the the six yard dump truck feet we don't have a six yard dump truck fee so we just have a 12 yard dump truck trailer so that's why we need to remove them so it's not confusing so like you said mayor this is just cleaning up these were previously in the ordinance but these are services that as far back as Rudy can remember I've never been provided so therefore we don't really need these fees in our fee resolution and okay so then the question would be all right so you're going to present right just keep going so here's where we add in the 12 yard dump truck um as well as limousine permit renewal and mowing services the abatement can be charged on the full 12-yard dump truck or in a partial increment of 1 8 and then all mowing services will be at this new hourly rate previously it was separated into two charges of forty five dollars each so it went from ninety dollars to 175. went from forty five dollars to 170. there were two separate fees that were

[1:05:42] charged for two different types of services previously is my understanding that's my point so there must have been two different 45 dollar charges so we're going from a total of combined ninety dollars current fee to 175. my understanding that it was previously two forty five dollar fees for different types of services so it is actually going from 45 to 175 and combining it into one fee rather than two separate fees for two different types of services so mowing in general would be 175 dollars that other service is was what and is where I have the two separate charges were small acreage and tractor moves previously and I need more detail than that I probably need to ask Rudy to come so the 175 is it for any size of a lot what are we looking at here the mowing services is 45 an hour whether it's tractor mode or just a regular uh small mold which is a residential lot no matter what the size of the lot is that's exactly right 45 an hour bigger the lot the better the value tractor takes a little bit more work and that is an hourly rate correct so a bigger lot would take more time but then we need okay so it's not 175 dollars per hour ly rate not a flat fee that's the point it's hourly so it's 175 dollars an hour so like if it was a bigger acreage lot then it would take longer and therefore cost more so Brenda yes please I think that's cheap I really do because my son Mose has 18 different yards and there's people there's builders that

[1:07:44] call him and say I have you to mow this lot and he he does it I I would say for what he does in the size of those uh I do think that's fair to what they would pay if they went out and actually got somebody to come especially those yards those large Lots they let them overgrow and you end up spending you have to come in with the tractor you end up spending probably two hours minimum by the time you get there and drive so I have no problem with that mowing I think that's fair but my question is if they don't pay that how do you sign that do we put a lien on the property well the other issue is okay so if you look at it it seems like this says whatever it is is 175 but we're saying it's per hour and that's not clear on this slide that it's an hourly fee not a dollar fee that's was my question what so I I will be the first one to say it's I think that's a fair charge to it I don't know how long we've been at this what rate we've charged but that's historic rate the 45 even if we charge it on two different things so I have no problem with that one I do want to point out that we're not in the mowing service business either this is only when people refuse to mow their lawns and we're having to send people out there to do this so again we encourage our citizens don't pay these rates uh please go out there and mow your Lawns take care of business and we won't have to go out there and do this are your local college student and you have that business card with you today so we can turn out or call Decker either one he has the number yes Lucy Tina what was the answer to that as far as we do put a lien on the property I will also say on the mowing in particular the cost of service is quite a bit higher at 475 dollars so say that again excuse me the calculated cost of service for the mowing was 475 dollars so this is still quite a bit lower than even that so some of that act as a just a penalty rather than just uh expenses of mowing no we couldn't this is just the cost of

[1:09:46] service yeah we cannot include a penalty in these services that would be not allowed this has to be based solely on cost of service what's the time frame between uh being receiving something in the mail that says if you don't mow it by this date we'll mow it and this is the fee so what's the communication on that and the way the process works we uh we go out with inspect we provide them a seven day period we mail out a letter we give them 10 days because of a because of the mail service I then they have seven days to Abate and at that point we will go back and reinspect if they need um more time they can ask for more time and we will grant that and ultimately if they're not in compliance we will put it on the list of abatement and that may take some time depending on how busy we are it could be a day it could be another week before we can get to it so that's what we're talking about and just clarify a couple of things too on the empowerment fee we don't impound we basically take it to the dump we don't keep anything so that's just clarification clarification property on the property that was it for Code Compliance I think we're going to do separate votes on each of these types of fee that's how we have it written into the agenda is that correct well let me ask you so if that was all the fees there certainly are there not other fees in Code Compliance other than those things that you just looked at or just leaving those Code Compliance fees the same as they are so there's no chance they'll be they'll remain the same unless the department director and or manager tells us that they see a need for a change and so these are the only three that they've requested to change this go around so vote on this one we need a motion on yes a vote on on the Code Compliance fees yes ma'am okay so may I have a

[1:11:48] motion for Code Compliance fee approval so moved by uh Tom second by Tommy public comment seeing none we'll take a vote all those in favor say aye aye aye no one opposed that is approved seven to zero all right we'll move on to the cemetery yes ma'am next up um it's my understanding that these have been reviewed and approved by the board and I think Jeremy's here and ready to discuss what you know what they're proposing and go through all of these proposed changes with us waiting patiently good morning Council Jeremy walker uh Cemetery supervisor we have our concrete boxes that we're trying to increase also our concrete vaults and our outside container saving fee Mark Is So based off the proposed fee does that cover the cost because in the previous one we talk about we want to increase it but it still doesn't meet the cost of that item or that service so do these new fees cover the cost of the item yes ma'am they do okay questions for Jeremy I need some education okay Larry and then Tom I think Larry was first Larry I wonder if he explained uh that if he'd back up on yeah what is an outside container replace the casket inside a uh it's gonna the outside container is going to be like a uh it's called an Econo Vault

[1:13:51] that the cemetery provide that the funeral homes provide and we'll place the casket inside there we actually have to do manual work to uh set the set the vault thank you Tom you got it okay Lucy out of curiosity do you need the concrete box or the concrete vault we were we require a uh container you don't have to have a vault or a box but then you would purchase a Wilbur Vault from this from the funeral home well if you've never had to bury anyone so that becomes so the question mark is do you need the question is the container and then the box and then the vault no the box is going to be a flat box the vault is going to be like a dome shape uh the outside container is going to be something you purchase from the funeral home but you have to have one of the three you don't have to have all three oh man it's an option correct any other questions or comment on this page okay next page this is our uh opening closing for our regular Services we're going from 1250 to 15 uh 50. this is the opening closing for inference service from 300 to 500 and this is the opening closing of a stacking would you put cast on top of another casket and this is from 1350 to 1650. and then the barrier open and close the over cremation service is going from 500 to 700. questions for Jeremy on these items one question Tommy Jeremy does does that cover your cost of providing the service sir does the increase in those fees cover your cost of providing the service yes sir okay so maybe not foreign

[1:15:52] so this uh the opening and closing the proposed fee is 1550 cost of service is estimated at 1682. for the infant proposing 500 cost of service calculated at 1426. stacking proposing at 1650 cost of service 1810 burial proposed 700 cost of service 32.62. wow I think when we discussed this the first time councils ago there was a question of the frequency that some of these we actually go into like and you hate to discuss these things but like and the burial of an infant is not that common as we say there are some of these fees that like we look at that only happen a few times a year isn't that Roger great uh as far as the infant uh burials we maybe have two maybe three a year right so the whole point in bringing these fees today in my opinion is we're trying to take these fees out of the general fund you know basically and put them back into where they should be properly allocated across the board it's unfortunate that we discuss Cemetery fees at the same time because it gets emotional across the board but as we go forward with it that's the The Stance I'm going to take is trying to recoup some of these fees that all the citizens pay back to a specific sign on and light item and when they bring these forward Jerry mouse we say I need to know what the true cost of it is and what Tina brought forward versus what we're actually proposing here just so we have an idea of how much Gap we're still putting on the entire population and I think the big issue having heard those numbers is the three items the first three items they're closer to actual costs but the

[1:17:55] bureau burial opening and closing cremation one is dramatically different than the actual cost and so the question mark is why are we not getting closer to the actual cost compared to the other three which are not as dramatically different I think you don't want to out price yourself I mean you can help price yourself and then you won't have any business you don't want to out price yourself I think these prices that uh fees that we have proposed they're uh in comparison to the other cemeteries here in town and they're right online we're still behind actually I know that's why we're asking the questions yeah and so and again and I say that relevant to again if you look at actual cost of service for the opening and closing of the regular opening closing of the amphet open and closing of stacking is closer to the actual cost you get down to the burial opening and closing The Cremation you said it was 3200 so that I think is our question is the dramatic difference between cost of service and proposed fee question comment from our perspective yes we were going off of what Jeremy recommended as far as Market rates and like he said not pricing ourselves out of you know being competitive I guess Jeremy the Fairmount Cemetery the board when they met they took all this into consideration I know uh you have a competitive Factor as well we understand that we also look at the uh the proposed fee and how much we actually should be charging based on the service cost but at this point you're just trying to make sure the discussion was had with the board that you'd want to put yourself out of the competition basically is that correct I mean we have we have the board here they're in support of the fees that we have

[1:19:59] can you tell us like on the burial opening and closing for cremation what does that entail I mean us uh actually digging the grave and actually uh putting up the tent and also uh working the service as far as standard size grave that you're digging as well no sir it's going to be a smaller grave we can put three cremations on top of a grave cremations don't always all require burial right so a lot of cremations are not a digging I mean creating oh yeah something to call them barium correct yeah so but these fees are those fees are not on here okay so only these are in-ground burial I guess my question was mayor why is it three thousand two hundred dollars for a reason I keep asking a question yeah the the dollar amount we say the cost of doing it seems large compared to if you're opening and closing a regular burial site for 15.50 and the actual cost is 16 something why is The Cremation one significantly lower when you're doing the same opening and closing that you do and again my ignorance do not I am ignorant okay on that but it should at times we do have to use like our back hole and we do have to use our trucks you know and so I think that goes to do on the other things too right correct but typically the in this case the lower fee for The Cremation burial is because you have a smaller area that you're you're not digging a big hole nobody so it sounds I know but the problem is what she said the actual cost is 3200. that's the number that's confusing is coming from that's it Tommy

[1:22:01] Maybe would it make it less confusing if we just had the very same fee for all those services some might be in excess the fee might be in excess of our cost or and some would still be short do we have good reason for having different and I realize that it's more this more that but is that the confusing part that we've got different fees and you might can you add anything to the and West can you add anything to our conversation that we're confused about you might not and it's okay if you don't so don't feel obligated okay so the bulk of the cost of this service is the backhoe the truck and one other piece of equipment so it's largely driven by the cost of using the equipment on this one agreed that's but that's the same thing you do for the opening and closing of the regular right and the opening and closing of a stacking that's the confusion correct but it's a smaller listed as the proposed fee for the opening and closing of a regular burial or a stacking what is the actual cost of that is it actually thirty two hundred dollars it should not be more expensive to do a cremation than it is to do a regular burial grave opening which you haven't seen yet is also cost of service of 31.51 so it's driven by the cost of the equipment okay well it's confusing then this is on this slide when you have open and closing on this one and you have it at 15.50 and the barrel opening and closing cremation is 700 if the next slide reflects that 3200 then that answers part of the question it's just what's the difference then between this slide open and closing

[1:24:05] regular compared to what you're going to present on the next slide it's going to show from what I heard Tina say is that the actual cost for the opening and closing for regular grave is thirty two hundred dollars approximately and since a uh cremation requires still digging in those fourth it gets close what these the reason these are cheaper for instance The Cremation is because the market rate is much lower for cremation so they're trying to stay within the market rate of what others charge and yes that they're both low compared to what actual cost I know but that that we okay we get but if you tell us that the opening closing regular is 1550 and the actual cost of that is 16 something you said then what is the next slide in terms of what's the difference between this slide and that process versus the next process it's 1550 is including also the 10. and so really you would take the tint off the 500 off of that and that's what the original opening closing would be on the regular okay but Tina just said that on the next slide that service is also 30. I where I think we're really confused because um are these additional to what we saw on the first slide yes okay okay so then you'll need to talk into

[1:26:10] the mic if as we go forward and but then okay give us the actual cost of these versus the proposed fee okay so over time on weekend proposed at 500 cost 623 overtime hourly proposed at 250 actual cost 623 oh that's not even on it I think it's just overtime in general grave opening 3151 proposed at 500. see that's the question there is that grave opening because when on that other slide we thought that would be inclusive of that what that slide said that service was it's our ignorance I'm sure this grave opening here is for the weekend you have a just say a funeral home calls us and they want to have a service on Monday we have to open up the grave on Saturday we're going to charge them a week in charge for work at work on the weekend then also the opening closing then also a grave opening for the weekend so the grave opening is inclusive in the other fee of 1550 from the previous slide only on the weekend yeah that's where these slides are not clear in that this should say grave opening but only this pertains only to overtime only when it's on a time when we're not open the other one would pertain to the weekday so yes that's correct it's not the grave opening exclusive and the first slides cost of service so they would pay that 15.50 plus 500 dollars because of the weekend service yes correct so then that actual cost is let's say 2 000 per proposed fees 2 000 compared to actual costs

[1:28:13] correct are all of those items right there weekend ones or is it just this is weekend here all of that is yes okay well except for the uh the tent setup and the additional tent that's just that comes with the but I'm saying oh okay first two years I think we're quite confused cable this one Mary and bring this one back until we have a uh it's not making a lot of yeah statistical sense right now and I'm sure it's us not well the information I think the majority of the issue is that a lot of this is based on Market rather than actual cost of service and that will not reflect if you're going to use Market rates and not price yourself out of the market you're not going to be able to reflect actual cost of service so I think that's a big part of the confusion what we can do is clean up some of these confusions in the slide to make it more clear as to exactly what it is you're voting on even knowing that the market is what it is but clarifying what it is you're voting on and that you know weekend is separate from this and that go ahead Tom oh something Jeremy that you have on this page that I like and always you've got proposed for you 500 bucks I would like to see that buck on the slide we looked at two ago I think you could average all those out 1650 you know you're looking 1682 we're coming up in 15 if you averaged all those to 1650. be able to recoup a loss going back to your first slide but I don't know if that helps you when you right there right that slide so I don't know getting back to your Market where you compare against all the others but I thought if you took a straight 1650 rate on all of those on either the infant opening closing yes but I mean you know this better and I'll side with brandtime this is not our business we're up here giving an oversight of something we're not professionally trained to handle here but it just looked like if there was one

[1:30:16] fee and you could average and recoup that would be a good way to do it but if we're going to table this and bring it back that's a discussion for a later time okay well and I think the other question is again lack of knowledge lack of information but even though cost of service is we're wanting to be Market competitive but is there not a market where people say I want to be in this Cemetery not the other cemeteries available but it's cheaper over here so I'm going to choose to move my burial plot that I've bought already over to another Cemetery because it's cheaper I mean I don't that sounds I mean it does happen it happens most definitely mayor I'd like to add one thing in regards to the conversation about averaging these fees the reason we have to do the feed study the way we do is because we can't exceed the cost of service in any of these fees otherwise it becomes impermissible tax so if we know that some of these charges are less I'm just averaging them all out and giving one fee for convenience isn't probably appropriate know all of that again we're being educated sorry our education levels low on this subject but you know what you're voting on as well so we want to make sure yeah we want to make sure that you all are very clear on that so again bringing it back we can do that so one last comment Jeremy you showed some passion when I talked about on the Infant if that one needs to stay if there's some compassion in that pricing I get that I think that should be looked at separately I'd like to ask a question about that if you can go to that slide on the uh Tommy was alluding to I guess I wonder what the difference in the service between the regular and the infant to have that much of a a dollar difference particularly in terms of what the actual cost is which was are you talking about

[1:32:18] the opening closing yeah different in a regular one is 1550. correct you're looking at it what what is the cause for the difference in in the cost of service cost of service on regular 1682 versus 1426 for an infant I mean what do they do on the opening and closing for an infant burial as opposed to what they do for a regular burial well the regular barrier you're looking at a full-size casket that you have to use a backhoe but also on the Infant it just depends on the cemetery some of it has rock and so when it went into areas where there's Rock then we have to use a backhoe but normally we do it by hand for the infant you dig the hole by hand if we can plot right so true yeah I think that we're there's a lot of confusion here let's let's bring it back at the next meeting and we'll all get a little more educated and come back a little more informed sounds like a plan yeah that we're not asking dumb questions thank you Jeremy all right the next one is Fort Concho okay we're moving some fees here as well for services no longer offered Mr bluethart is here on that as y'all get into those on the half day rates as you get into them Bob is going to correct an error that was made on those so you all see that coming up for his right correction yeah we need to make a change to what he submitted on the half day rates so removing these fees and then going on to proposed fees that I was I'm sorry that was too fast I'm sorry

[1:34:18] removing fees on these morning mayor no longer going to charge for the pancake breakfast that's not a charge that we create that's the Lions and since the Lions sort of control the money line on that and they know what their expenses are it makes more sense for them to control that it also makes the bookkeeping easier for us the courtyard is just an issue we can't maintain that with grass that a renter that a renter would like to see the soil is bad it's difficult for us to keep traffic off it and we often have worker Crews pounding up to death so it wasn't a popular rental venue anyway so we just rolled that into the Barrack 6 rental and that's why that rental will go up a little and it probably won't have a lot of financial effect on us Cowboy day well you know San Angelo has a reputation of being deaf to those who are SVP if you're trying to run a breakfast with perishables for 100 people and you buy for 110 show up and that's what happened the last two years so we just pulled that and we just have some free fruits and veg cakes and coffee and stuff and so forth and people seem to like it better that way and the evening at Fort Concho that Harkens back to an earlier age when we used to get a lot of bus groups people don't do bus groups anymore they take care of their own business the internet has allowed everyone to be their own travel agents so we haven't done one of those in years we have other fees there that take care of those expenses if something comes up similar to that but the old days of a bus load of folks come in from Peoria and we charge them so much per for our services those that they're gone so tidying just up the bookkeeping okay for Barrack six going from a

[1:36:24] current fee of 300 to a proposed fee of 350 dollars commissary going from 600 to 700 dollars oq1 going from 125 to 175 to 150 to 200 and then oq8 going from 250 to 300. and I think this is the one where we needed to make the adjustment for the half day rate which is written right now into the resolution um as it was before but it needs to be language that says it would be one half of whatever the daily rate is just a comment on the fees on the charges themselves these have not been raised since October of 2017 so that's six years last I checked on inflation watch there's been a 20 to 25 percent increase in expenses since then for everything so this just is playing catch-up these were discussed and approved by the staff given to the board and we also look very carefully at other rental venues across the city to make sure that we were being competitive and this is for us a major business model this is one of our larger Revenue sources that allow us to do all the free and low-cost things we do all year long questions for Bob from anyone Harry do you have any questions or comments on these fees okay no I do not I appreciate the work to get him to where they are today okay for the quartermaster moving from 500 this is another adjustment Bob needed to make this proposed fee should be 600 rather than 700 dollars um The Stables going from 1500 to 1750 a baseball demonstration going from six dollars per person to seven dollars per

[1:38:26] person in the frontier day Booth rentals going from 10 to 100 to 15 to 100 dollars why is the minimum increase but not the maximum for which one well Frontier day it's 10 to 100 but the increases that on the ten dollars but nothing on the hundred dollars quite honestly that is one we don't use very often and we didn't see a need to raise it that High Frontier day unlike Christmas is a four hour event versus three days and we frankly haven't had more than a handful of profit uh non-non-profit moves that would Merit the charge for so this is not a major Revenue area I don't think we get anybody to pay a hundred dollars to hang out on the porches for four hours the others uh the differences in the in the charges represent basically the size of the building the capacity of the building and the amenities of the building if you've been to uh the commissary that's our Workhorse building it has a kitchen quartermaster does not on the other hand Stables is four times the size of all the other buildings so it's all a matter of what the customer wants and price it accordingly questions on any line item here and keep moving on Halloween theme night program going from 5 to 15 to 8 to 15 the Christmas event going from three to seven dollars to five to nine dollars and then the Christmas event space rental going from three to four hundred dollars to 350 to 500 dollars again the question is we go from five to eight but 15 stays 15. on the night program for Halloween that's correct we we think the 15 is sort of a top rate for us we looked at some other events in the city and we do very well at that rate and I think if we go any higher we may discourage folks it's also a family friendly thing we get a lot of families that come out for that the Christmas

[1:40:28] event is always a hot button everybody loves the event that's the one thing everybody knows what we do those rates haven't changed in almost nine years I can pretty much tell you inflation has eaten up a lot of that value in the last nine years and this will allow us to play some ketchup and the Christmas event rental we like a little float in there simply because this is a very challenging market for us there were not as many folks out there who do these kind of shows as they used to so we have to be very aggressive in finding them and we don't want to price ourselves out of the market so this gives us a bit of a float to use and make sure we're not costing ourselves out of having all the buildings filled no further questions on this slide okay then may I have a motion to approve the fort Concho fee increases motion to approve motion by Cameron seconded by Lucy all those any public comment on these Fort Concho fees seen none we will are hearing none we'll take a vote all those in favor say aye aye aye report Concho fees are approved seven to zero we thank you in prosperity next one is planning okay so again we're moving some fees here from the ordinance for services no longer provided conveyance of property interest and right-of-way for improved streets and alleys unimproved streets and alleys and streets and allies were significant easements for Access by the public and or utilities are reserved and then under General Provisions a discount that applied to fees for Plan reviews the expired in May of 2021. okay so on the conveyance of property when we say administration fee what's the cost of the land itself where where does the cost of the land fall into is that a separate line item yes

[1:42:33] John James director of planning and development services that's a separate fee that's as when we bring abandonments of Rights of way to you we mentioned the fee for that and that's a separate fee that's already in there frankly I'm not sure exactly what this is intended to um to be charged for it's something we've never charged and so as we were looking through cleaning up we believe that other fee captures all of the costs necessary for that abandonment process so for improved streets and alleys who would have we charge that fee to well it's not uncommon for a developer to request abandonment of a street where there is actually a street there or an alley oftentimes you'll see them where a street or alley was never built like the one I think it was on second reading today for the school there wasn't a street actually there but sometimes we do get a request for abandonment of a street where there is an actual Street in place so these fees are things that have not been used over a certain period of time that's right again we we have an abandonment fee that's based on the square footage of the land to be abandoned as well as the pro the market value of that it's a percentage of the market value of that amount of property and so I think that fee captures again what what we want from those abandonments okay so under General Provisions discount expired 5421 discount applies to fees for Plan reviews associated with subdivision plots and Urban Design reviews well we still do those yeah this was a discount we we offered we we did kind of a trial run of uh offering a discount for folks who submitted their projects digitally back when we originally rolled out our

[1:44:35] digital plan review software but when you all adopted that you put an expiration date on it of May 2021 so that fee has actually already gone away but it's still listed in the resolution of fees and so it's just cleaning that up to remove it we we have been in discussions with the development task force about a possible new either additional fee if you don't submit digitally or a discount for submitting digitally but we're still kind of working through the details some of them are done digitally today I don't have a number for that it's it's increased since we got our plan review software it also depends on we have like commercial plans virtually all of them are submitted digitally residential plans you know it's it varies uh but it's it's definitely not all of them uh things like plats are almost exclusively digital um and so it depends on the type of project and plan that's that's being submitted but it's increasing every year more and more people are are going through the digital process partly because it's it makes the review process faster if they submit a paper set of plans first thing we have to do is have staff go scan those upload them and so that adds some extra time in the review process Council so on this slide these first two fees are decreasing when our proposed rates from one the design and historic review admin from 195 to 120 the administrative Amendment from 130 to 80 and then setting up a new fee called site plan review for resubmission a proposed fee of 280 dollars and I'll let John speak to why there's a new fee as well as some decreases in those first two yeah basically the two decreases are as we looked through our cost of providing those Services um

[1:46:37] we felt like it was justifiable to reduce those based on the amount of time that they actually do take the new plan we most or many of our site plans that get submitted uh don't take multiple Cycles but we have some some submissions that we have to review multiple times and so this is this is a fee that would charge an additional fee because um you know it's the same people reviewing each time that goes through it's actually less than the first review because the first review is more comprehensive and it does take more time but when when they don't make all the corrections that we've given them we have to spend you know a fair amount of time reviewing those a second time I will point out that this would be for the second resubmission so if if somebody submits a commercial site plan we review it give them a list of Corrections they need to make they resubmit those Corrections there wouldn't be a charge at that point if they submit something that hasn't made all those Corrections and then have to submit a third time after we've given them a second round of comments it would be that third submission that would have this resubmission fee what happens if you all ask for additional things when you get set ready to re-review it the second one that's a pretty rare occurrence I think if that happened we would not charge that fee if we if we learned of something that that wasn't addressed in the first place now most of the time when that happens it's when something changes so they submit their first plan we say hey you need to correct these things well in the process of correcting those something else changes so an example a recent recent example is because of one Department's comment the developer had to move the dumpster over well when they resubmitted they moved the dumpster where it was suggested but then that blocked the fire lane and so the Fire Marshal's office said well no you're blocking the fire lane you have

[1:48:40] to you have to adjust something else the developer sort of saw that as a new you know they said well you never said anything about the fire lane in the first place but it was only because they moved the dumpster Into the Fire Lane that created that something new that hadn't been commented on the initial review that I'm stir in the original plan it was in the original plan but I don't remember the specifics I think it was within a setback or a created a visibility issue at a driveway and so it had to be moved our comment was just you need to move it out of this this visibility triangle area um we didn't say move it but don't put it in the fire lane well no we we're not that specific but uh but they ended up moving they move it into the fire they also were required I mean they know the rules they look through those and are aware of those so normally we don't have to say that all right I'm adding three more fees under planning for white right-of-way encroachment for admin sidewalk waiver and a development plan fee why are these new why well and the first one's a little misleading right now we just have a right-of-way encroachment fee and it's 450 dollars so um if you come in for a right-of-way encroachment you're paying 450 regardless of if it's one that comes to council or it's done administratively so what we're doing is creating a new fee for those that are administrative with a much lesser fee because it doesn't have the whole process of having to go to council so it's this actually is really a reduction in the fee the other two fees are processes that have been created over the last few years that ordinances were adopted to create these processes but a fee was never established for them and so it's just establishing a fee for those processes that already exist we've never had a development plan fee before well no a development plan is is something new it's actually a

[1:50:44] replacement for a site plan so instead of doing a full-blown site plan where you're paying maybe four or five hundred dollars for the fee it's a more simplified review in certain circumstances where all we have to review are things like parking so if if a building's use is changing for example and they're going from a retail to a restaurant we have to review the parking but there's no sense in having them do the full site plan process and pay 400 because we're only reviewing a limited number of things and so I guess another way to look at this one is it's it's decreasing the fee although when we created those two separate processes we never actually created a fee for the development plan so we actually aren't charging them that full site plan fee which we probably could be doing uh but now we're creating the new fee of 75. that's it under the planning okay questions or comments from Council yes Tom no Brenda I'm John and you covered it on the resubmission as long as we're Fair because there will be times we get a call and it's like the fourth time somebody's made a trip up there and they're like hey got to pay this fee and so I don't know when you start these but I would sure encourage everybody to do a consult especially if they're not a professional that does a lot of development just to be fair to make sure they're not getting a redundant fee placed on them I appreciate your fairness and going through that I really do may I have a motion for approval of the planning fees by Tommy second by Tom any public comment on those fees none we will take a vote all those in favor say aye aye aye motion passes seven zero we will now move into permits and inspections so you're on

[1:52:49] so again starting out with removal of fees these also expired in May of 2021 so we're just cleaning up the fee schedule by removing them so you no longer get a discount I believe John said this was a discount related to digital submission when we first implemented the software and Council put an expiration date on that discount of May 4 2021 when we did that yeah I'm a little confused because we were just talking about well we might do something different because we need to re-review those done by computer versus whatever so or it's just saying there's no fee then for residential commercial review no there's no longer a discount related to digitally submitting there's still a fee involved no incentive to do it digitally correct but we're trying to get people to do it digitally initially we proposed a digital or a non-digital fee when we came to council the last time and I think we got some feedback that that was not in this case there was a expiration date placed on that and so this is just adhering to that if you want to continue to offer it you can do that well it sounds like to me if we're trying to motivate people to do it digitally then I think we ought to re-review the discount expiration date if the intent is to continue to incentivize people to do a digital digitally didn't you say John y'all were talking about we hope to do that in fact as Tina mentioned we had brought a non-digital submission extra add-on fee last time we brought these as we met with the development Community there were a lot of questions on well what does it mean to submit digitally what if I if I send it as a PDF but don't upload it into the software does that count or not um are there any exceptions and so we had some exceptions but with the back

[1:54:53] and forth with the development Community we thought let's just hold off on that until next year until we can work that out some of those details a little better before we bring that bring that back to you as he said if you do want to re-implement the discount you can certainly do that until John has time to work through that but that's at council's all I know is if you're trying to encourage people to do it that way then we need to be specific about what that does mean is is a PDF digital or not because PDFs have to be done digitally so how is that not digital John you may just want to stay up here actually yeah there's more work involved right yeah there is more work like I mentioned if if they submit it digitally it's in the system and the way it works we send that out to all the reviewers and it's done through the software and they get a notice that they have something to review and um but if they submit it on paper we have to scan it upload it takes extra staff time to do that but even if they email a PDF we still have to download that load it into the software so there is some extra extra work there but that then it gets complicated so you know they it does actually help us if they submit it as a digital PDF but it's not as helpful if they look as if they load it directly into the software but we still need to work out some of those details if we're going to give people a discount personally I think ideally it would be only if they go completely software upload it directly that's what saves us staff time and money otherwise you know it's not as helpful so if we said we want to extend the discount but the discount applies only if you use the software approach to it not at the PDF approach you could do that again I we had proposed this fee and and talking with the development Community there were enough questions that we thought let's just hold off so there's confusion leave it alone yeah I would I would

[1:56:57] recommend not doing that we'll we'll definitely come back to you with something next year as we flesh out the details a little more so moving on to the fees proposed fees for no alterations going from 105 to 195 for minor alterations from 170 to 300 and for multiple inspections from 495 to 890. okay so if there's no alterations why is the fee going up when I hand it off to the expert Charlie our building at Charlie Camp our building official I think can better answer some of these detailed questions about what these processes are and and the fees but in general we did all of the cost of service calculations and these are all fees that we already have and the cost of service you know we're again at your direction trying to get closer to that hundred percent and so most of these that you'll see today on permits and inspections is just taking that first step to get closer to 100 percent you know I'm confused about well no alterations is because if there's no change no anything going on what's the current fee even why did we even have a fee if there's no change at all good morning Charlie Camp billing official on a change of occupancy with no alterations we're still doing it in a review for what the property owned is it allowed and then we're also making that inspection so for example if you're doing a change of occupancy you're going from say an office space to now you're going to be retail sales we still do a change of occupancy for that and there's a application and a permit process so there really is nothing quote defined as no alterations no alterations would be they're doing no remodel at all inside the building they're just changing the use any other questions on this slide

[1:59:12] okay on multiple inspections that means your inspector is going to go back into that same facility multiple times because we didn't pass the inspection the first time so you're going to come back a second time to reinspect it not exactly minor alterations would be considered like if you're remodeling maybe just moving some interior walls and things like that and so that falls into your minor alterations multiple inspections that would be if you're doing electrical mechanical and plumbing and so you have other inspectors that would go out there other than just the building inspector and the fire inspector is that a one-time fee Charlie or is that a multiple yes sir it's a one-time fee and it's only when they're changing the use of the building that this applies well even if they had if we had to go out there three times all the Macs are going to pay the 890. that's correct that's correct um the only time that you would fall into maybe like a re-inspect is um the inspectors if they go out there multiple times say for example you have your plumbing inspector go out there he does a top out they have an issue he tells them how to fix it they go out they call back he goes out again they still haven't fixed it and then by then we start talking to that contractor about re-inspect fees but initially this is a one-time fee So when you say multiple inspections you're talking about tasks not showing up so it's like having plumbing electrical whatever the multiple means the product it doesn't mean the number of trips correct multiple inspections mean yes different trades and different inspections for that trade okay questions comments okay moving on for foundation only residential going from 55 to 95 and then accessory structure going from 40 to 85 dollars

[2:01:17] even though the accessory structure might be half the size of the residential yes ma'am because it's still taking us the same amount of time to do those reviews and do those inspections on the accessory structure because you're thinking of drive time and inspector time but on the accessory structures typically they are going to be smaller so once they get out there there's going to be a little less time all right on demolition fees commercial going from 115 to 175 residential from 55 to 95 and accessory structure from 30 to 70 dollars any questions on this slide is that per hour is just total fee that's total fee so regardless of the amount of time it takes really tear down something for 70 bucks City would not be tearing it down we're doing the inspection for that okay so you're coming to to the city to ask to tear it down and in that ask we charge you seventy dollars to ask to take it down questions become expensive well well we do we do make an inspection on that and we do make sure that like that your sewer lines capped that you don't have any like wires that would be concerning be a fire hazard those are some of the things that when we do go out to look at that we make sure that they don't leave anything that would be considered unsafe that makes more sense thank you Charlie looking at approach curb Cuts residential would go from 30 to 70 commercial from 55 to 95 and in-state right-of-way add 50 or five dollars to thirty dollars in state right away we have the authority to mess with the right-of-way of the state we are responsible to process that application we do send it over to the state for their approval so

[2:03:19] it does take additional time that's why that's an additional thirty dollars we get within they look and then we we are ultimately the ones that inspect it to their guidelines for swimming pools for commercial going from 75 to 90 residential above ground from 35 to 70 and residential in ground from 40 to 75. again these are total fee not hourly fees correct temporary occupancy residential going from fifty to seventy dollars and Commercial going from 100 to 135 dollars Temporaries for how long temporary Co is good for 30 days and then you can ask for an extension for electrical base fee going from 40 to 70 dollars installation requiring more than two inspections would go from 50 to 60 dollars questions Plumbing base fee going from 40 to 75 and large fixture going from Seven dollars and fifty cents to eight dollars a large fixture your large fixtures are going to be like your your main sewer lines your main water lines your main gas lines grease traps sand traps things like that the small the small pictures are three dollars and they stay the same we do not increase those and then mechanical basically going from 40 to 75 commercial vent a hood going from 25 to 60 and then a voucher going from 20 to 35 dollars voucher is what we have been in a voucher program for I want to say close to 20 years and what that is is when you're doing a change

[2:05:21] out in a residential like for like so it has to be exactly the same thing we about every 10 Replacements because everybody permits those we look at those and then we do check jobs on or we go and do inspections so the reason is because of the volume we don't have the manpower to do all of those so we came up with the voucher program so that it every tenth one we're still looking at and inspecting and you can get a voucher on it and request to have that inspected as well on on your mechanical systems only for signs Billboard's going from 165 to 285 wall signs going from 50 to 105 freestanding 2 to 50 square feet 60 to 115 for standing 51 and up 70 dollars to 120 dollars and then a portable signs going from 40 to 75 dollars so if you change the advertising on the billboard every time you change the advertising on the billboard it's 285 only if they're going to have to replace the can or any structural portion of that billboard so like the vinyl that does not require a permit we only look at it if they're changing the can that also applies to your freestanding signs any questions okay General fees for an hourly rate in excess of two hours would be sixty dollars inspection convenience fee six from 25 to 60 dollars temporary tents from 40 to 85 dollars okay so um convenience fee is the same as the okay so that one's a final fee the other one's an hourly rate so on a convenience fee if you call we're on a half day notice so if you call that morning your inspection is set

[2:07:23] up for that afternoon and our cutoff is at 12 55 um right before one o'clock when we all get back from lunch there are times that we'll get contractors to call at two o'clock and they want the inspector to come out there by five o'clock because say for example they need to pour their concrete and so if we have the manpower to do that we'll do that but we do charge a convenience fee because you sometimes it may create the inspector to go into later hours or do a little less time but there is a fee for that but okay so it's at 12 55 but your clothes from 12 to 1. yes but we get calls and emails up to like throughout the lunch hour so we answer all of those so if somebody emailed or called at 12 58 you get down for that afternoon residential construction base fee going from 50 to 75 dollars residential structure living area going from 13 cents to 14 cents garage carports porches patios and accessories from 10 to 11 cents residential remodel repairs and Etc going from five cents to 11 cents I'm going to stop right here for a minute and because we've got audience today from the home builders and I want to know up until now if there's any public comment on any of the items that we've just gone through or where we are currently and could you come forward so we don't get too far down the road we lose track of where we're at Rocky templin single member district six on this draft right here that was in y'all's packet on page 120. 22 on the proposed years three and four

[2:09:27] in the current fees all the fees that Tina just listed are all above the fees for year 24 in either category and so every one of them is above except for these three right here and so I do want to thank you all for postponing this last time and then letting us work on it because on these three fees they made a major Improvement where and we didn't have a year 26 until I saw this in the packet we did every year 24 and 25 and so on a 1200 1400 square foot house before we came proposed was like at 473 dollars they reduced that to 311 in this current year and then next year it will go to 370 and then now in 26 it will go to 4 15. which is great at that time it's only going to be 87 percent of cost and then on the median size house the same thing we were at 626 before they've got that reduced to uh 420 and then next year 491 in a year 26 550 which is 97 the cost and so that's very good on the bigger house the 2843 house we were at a thousand dollars they got it reduced to 649 this year 7 45 next year and then in 26 we will be at 8 33 at the current values we'll be at 111 percent of cost so but in 26 that may be a wash all those are great so the concern was just on the whole list that we received in the packet today every fee that she just announced is higher than the proposed fee for this year whether in three years since we've just moved yes whether it was a three year or four year so that's the question why we just received that or those fees are not on

[2:11:30] this draft that you all received in your packet we want to review those fees versus what you all had proposed so we better understand the discussion relative to proposal versus uh yeah we would just like to know why they were proposed at this and and even on everything we got back on the 23rd we still didn't receive the fees that we received today at the developmental task force meeting so like we mentioned when we brought this to you last time on some of the fees if it was like 32 dollars we rounded to 35 dollars after discussion with the Department just to have a a you know a more round number to charge and so that would be the difference of maybe a couple dollars between some of these fees yeah a couple of I mean I think one question I've heard is why did we just get new information yesterday which is what I think I heard and I am not aware of I didn't understand that part of the comment so um some of these fees had already got had already done the first year of increase and so it's a little misleading to have the fiscal year of each because for some of them we're actually on step two so you would actually be looking at the column that says fy25 because what those labels probably should be instead of 24 25 26 are year one year to year three because on some of those fees we already did the year one increase and now we're going to the year two increase but how does one know the difference between one sheet of

[2:13:32] paper that designates year and another sheet of paper that designates one two or three because who knows what year one was was that 22 this case it was probably 2019. and Mark is we're at the development task force meeting was everyone looking at the same statistics meaning year one in that conversation versus three or are we talking 2022 versus 2023 first and is year two 2023 if year one was 2019. so you're the the things that were changed in 2019 are considered year two now even though it's been four years because we delayed it for the previous three years so we're in year two or cycle two or however you want to label it of those fees but in the remainder we're in the first cycle for the ones that were just doing the second third of permit fees okay and then the next question is obviously they're confused about the conversation and the development task force meeting that said here's what we recommend and then today we're seeing different numbers from the recommended conversation at the development task force meaning if I'm understanding that correctly am I understanding that correctly okay so let's talk about the conversation and the what was believed to be an agreement in the development task force meeting with the cost of service versus what's being presented today okay Kimberly says that we've made no changes to our proposal except for the residential and commercial construction which I think that Rocky was happy with those changes Rocky what were you referring to because I think there's confusion and all of

[2:15:35] that great templin yeah the page you received in your draft um for your packet today of page 122 is the exact page that we had at the developmental task force on June 23rd so all these are figures are exactly the same the difference is uh say on Co multiple inspections where it said current year 24 was going to be at 7 34. she is saying now that that fee will be 890 dollars so it's an increase of 156 dollars and so it's that way throughout the entire list compared to the June 23rd yes well just from what she announced so our concern is if this is today and we're in between 25 and 26 on the values where we're going to be on 26 and 27. if they increase it the same the values that she's using today are we going to exceed the cost of services explanation from someone on that I don't have the sheet in front of me but on the multiple inspections for the change of occupancy there was a mileage concern and so we did deduct some of the mileage so it lowered the cost of it did not increase it Rocky is that correct for what you're looking at it's looking at a whole list and we did send those out we sent out the ones that we changed for mileage and it was the change of occupancy the new the new residence and then also provided the change because one thing that we and it was kind of confusing and we did explain it to him we took three houses and we took a small house medium-sized house and a large house and maybe that

[2:17:38] wasn't the best way to do it we tried to figure out how to be fair well on a large house you're going to spend more time with your permits your inspections your reviews it's larger so instead of saying okay for the large test we're going to charge you this for the middle size house we're going to charge you this and for the small house we're going to charge you this because the smaller houses take less that's reasonable yes right so we combined those well when you when we did that it showed the percentage the cost of service percentage a little bit higher on the larger houses because it's saying you know you're you're taking more but when you averaged it out we were below 100 we were like at 80 percent we understood that that was kind of frustrating on at the home bill for the home builders so what we did was we went back and we made sure that no house even the large size house would not exceed 100 percent so by doing that you are deducting quite a large amount off of your medium-sized house and your small house to get all of them to come out to let to be that hundred percent or eight eighty percent does that make sense from what you're looking at yeah the import was right what the question was like on a CEO on multiple inspections year 24 it was projected at 734 and Tina said it's going to be 8.90. starting today so if we're already here so where's it going to be the next one was 9.73 is it going to jump to a thousand or 1200 and so on that is the number from when we we deducted it I don't know and mayor we have no trouble with adjusting any of these proposed fees that's the whole purpose of this discussion is to

[2:19:39] get council's feedback and see where we want to end up but we're still not getting to the cost of service with what we're proposing and so that's a discussion here's our concern is Rocky's referring to page 122 which when we pull up the agendas and the back documents in our packet we have page one of two we don't have 122 pages of fees to review I think he's talking about 122 of your entire PDF document that you get in your background is what I'm guessing correct if you go back to the first place so Tina I think if I was to sum it up here they would just like to see the final number before it comes up to be the final number before what we show here they want something that matches I don't think there's an argument per se with the fee but it's having less than the phone call it from that group is typically safe from every thing that I've heard the emails that I've seen that we were all in agreement before this meeting so I'm not sure where this confusion is coming from so this one um 890 is proposed that cost of service is 12 12 so we're still only getting to 73 percent of the cost of service I think their question mark also is again that conversation I said earlier is this year one year two year three or is this 23 24 and 25. I don't really think that matters I mean we're in cycle two of the 2019 changes we're in cycle one of the current year changes does matter you're asking for one year's approval you're not asking for a three-year cycle is that correct so before the next increase uh is implemented it has to pass muster with Council so it doesn't matter what those out columns say you're approving one set of fees today and that next step will have to come

[2:21:43] back to council is that correct actually I think uh correct me if I'm wrong Teresa but I think the ordinance now states that we will move to one-third of the cost of service every year that's correct that's what we passed in 2019 I believe so this is a multi-year approach discussed the council in 2019 and that's what we were directed to do I thought we had dropped that part that's why they're saying we've just voted to delay it for the last three years and so that's why we are where we are I think that may be at least for me the bottom line is we directed staff in 2018 to get to the break-even point to me this discussion while important is not the overriding factor we're still going to be even at 8.90 and the cost of service is 12 12. we need to get to the cost of of providing the service because we're feeding the general fund from the general fund to cover and that's all the taxpayers doing that these are these are if I'm unless I misunderstand these are really user fees the people that are paying for this are those using a specific service so again my mind is can't get anything wrapped around we're still not at covering the cost of service let's cover the cost of service that may be way too simplistic but but the issue is is if we're presenting information to the builders the Home Builders Association and we're giving them specific information as it relates to here's the the proposed fee for year one then year two and then year three so are we approving and each one of

[2:23:47] these only for the current year yes because they're looking at I believe they have those operations that's multiple years that is intentionally labeled a final number that is intentionally labeled with a big draft Watermark across it because when we get to the next cycle next year we're going to recalculate cost of service and go another third to that 100 percent and that's per ordinance that we've been directed to do by city council we could change the ordinance should we choose I don't think that's wise Omer I mean we do need to get to the point where we're covering the cost of service we're not looking for profit we're looking for just covering our cost of service right now the revenue budget into planning and development services is a million dollars whereas the expense coming out of it is 2.5 million so I think there were some GIS numbers in that yeah they're sold out so that's not Apples to Apples yeah so it's probably about half a million I think I think John said it's probably about half a million of their expense budget so it'd be about one million dollars being subsidized Tina did you show them this presentation I mean preview with the fees you're showing us here today did they see those at the last my understanding was that we were all in agreement before I came to this meeting or else I wouldn't be up here presenting to you so if there's some disconnect or confusion I'm not sure where it's coming from Kristen you want to come speak I'm Kristen Oliver with the Home Builders Association we've been working great with the city trying to get this we all know the fees need to go up I guess the confusion was that the last communications that we received were at the end of June that it did have the year 24 25 26 which actually match what you received in your packet so these fees do not line up with what the other pages so that's what we're kind of we were confused when they started presenting those because those were not the numbers that we were that we were

[2:25:50] given at the last the very last communication they said this is what we're going to be going off of so that's all that's only our hour was our only concern because we never received a final draft that was that was actually that we these were the numbers that we had been working off of I mean like I said when you left that meeting that those would be the numbers presented is that these were this was the last communication that was sent to us and so and that's where our discussions were from these numbers and so like I said we we did not realize that the other numbers were the ones that were being presented I mean not that we're I guess we just needed a little bit more transparency on that like I said we just we were not aware that these numbers were were changing from what we had been talking about so um Charlie just showed me the sheet that they were handed out at the meeting back in June and it is it does include this 890 I mean those were the proposed fees they haven't changed since then what they're referring to is a like I said intentionally labeled draft document to show city council the difference in moving from a year three to a year four plan and these are all rough estimates again that will change next year when we come to fee review process and we do recalculate the cost of service and so it is not intended to be a final draft of anything but the fee schedule they were given back in June matches these numbers no they're saying it doesn't that's the confusion team that's why Charlie just pulled it up on the laptop and it matches the same they're just looking at a sheet of paper that they had in their hands that's all I think the confusion is that on June 21st we provided them with all the numbers you've just seen and we met with them um subsequent to that they they or during that meeting they said well we didn't see the three-year versus four-year plan so Finance put together that sheet that they're referencing that had a really rough three-year four-year plan and they're correct those those

[2:27:54] fees did not match in year one with these fees we've proposed and I think the confusion was they thought that that three-year four-year comparison was an update to those fees we never changed those fees that we were proposing and I can see that confusion uh but the the point of that chart was really just to show that going from a three-year plan to a four-year plan really didn't make much difference but those were never intended to be the actual proposed fees that was on the other sheet that everybody has seen that had the actual proposed fees well I know if I was at that meeting and I had a sheet of paper in front of me that said year one would be this number regardless of what year two and year three and year four were I would expect that year one would be on here matching that sheet of paper to the to the mic patina please it did match on the schedule we gave them at that meeting John just referred to these numbers all matched that schedule that they all had from that meeting again it's just the draft that we provided city council to show because we were asked to bring a four-year and versus a three-year plan the only reason we even put that document in your background was to show you that there were very nominal differences most less than ten dollars if we went to four year versus a three year so we were proposing that we should stay the course in a three-year plan just like we do with all of our other fees that we review to cause less confusion and to make sure we stay on track and getting to our goal I'd like to add that um some of this discussion feels like there's a requirement somewhere that the home builders approve everything that's brought to you and that's not that's not a board where we require them to approve everything before it comes to you for a decision I do believe that this discussion proves they have adequate opportunity to address any kind of conflicts there might be and what they believe was presented or what they believe wasn't

[2:29:55] um but again you guys will make whatever decision you want but there's no need to stall any decision you make today based on the fact that there's a misunderstanding with them because there's no requirement that they approve finally before something comes here so I get that I understand that but I do believe tend to meeting and in that meeting you are told that this is do we all agree and is there any concerns about those numbers I understand that meeting and you believe that there was no difference in the in what you what was talked about what was agreed upon is going to be what's presented because again if there was disagreement on those numbers I would think that discussion would happen at that development task force meeting and planning could then say well that number's not going to work we're going to have to talk about this further because that number is not going to be a number that will work that's the issue when I think what I heard Tina say is that there's not a discrepancy on what was going to be presented there's just what they've we're told is going to be presented at this meeting on one paper and they're bringing a second paper they were provided to say well look this one doesn't match that that's what I heard her say but of course the document they were provided at the meeting we had with them is the document of the proposed fees that you saw today well can they just not show you the piece of paper that they're talking about they did it's it's what was provided in your background marked draft to show the difference between moving from a three-year plan to a four-year plan all right Tony did you have something to say did you want to come to the podium Builder and developer I think it's important to recognize that as we stand here today the fees that are proposed for this year

[2:31:57] are fine they will bring us up to an acceptable level so that the next year if we have some kind of agreement some acceptable level within three or four years will be up to cost of service Tommy we can't get there today we're not trying to get there today as long as everybody is clear that these these precisely that's why I'm so that's why I'm standing these numbers are temporary this problem Council and mayor have not recognized that this problem is ongoing and it's a managerial issue that is causing these problems lack of communication unwillingness to be you know at least forthcoming with information in a timely manner for us this is pro this is a chronic problem we have been advised of changes with many situations the day before after previous agreements previous previous meetings so in general managerial problem you folks have many many questions about entirely other other issues that staff brings up here and they're not clear about so how can you be clear about it and the Layman's like us out in the community how can we be clear about it I'd like to say that staff has been working with everyone in good faith and I think that's an ongoing process for the past several years and it's been in good faith it's unfortunate that we get to this point and then we end up with this because we do want to make sure that in working with the community that you do have your input and you've been given that I think that Paulie a lot of information has been received

[2:34:00] from you all with our staff so I do want to thank my staff for the good faith effort that they put forth we do continue discounting all of this we will get to a point hopefully where we can actually have the cost of service covered we as a city cannot continue functioning that way no business can function that way we just need to get to the cost of service we're not asking for a profitable level but we'll continue discounting at this point until we get to the third year so thank you for that any further questions or comments concerning the fees as presented so my question Brenda yes we're good on year one that's right and we're going to see this again in a year yeah yeah okay you will not see this again in a year per the ordinance it currently states that staff will move it for to the next one third of cost of service and that's the confusion see well it will be part of the budget presentation but you won't see it as a separate fee item so there will still be time for you to see it review it and discuss it but it's during the budget process and not as a separate fee review you could say yes or no to it to move this along while there's parts and I understand the passion on both sides I'll go ahead and make the motion to prove as presented if you're done with your presentation the move is presented but I would sure like to make sure that the next time we go through this they see the exact same numbers we put on the board and they're clear that they know this is what we're going to throw up on the board all I'm asking gotta be in the quote same page I'll second that mayor okay um I think we've had public comment I'm not sure we need more public comment and with that let's take a vote all those in favor of approving year one of a multiple year program that will be rediscussed at the same time during budget session next year all right all those in favor say aye aye no um Nays so that passes seven zero we will now move into item G first

[2:36:02] reading and public hearing of an ordinance amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1 2022 and ending September 30th 2023 for projects Tina you're on thank you mayor this is just a budget for the amount that we're pulling out a fund balance for the seasons that you all approved a few meetings back so putting that money into an escrow fund as required so that we can pay down that debt that you approved yes ma'am that's it that would be easy move we approved second could we debate it did you say Daniel so we should okay I thought you said everything else has been debated I thought you said oh no so we have a first and a second on that we have a first and a second all right and then is there public comment with none we'll take a vote all those in favor say aye aye aye the motion passes seven zero and we will now move into closed session the executive session on the provision of government code title V open government ethics subtitle a open government chapter 551 open meeting sub chapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings be open under the following sections section 551.087 business Prospect negotiations regarding Project New Wave project equipment share project Monet project stock line and um hold on a project Paulie project Texas Project aqua and section B uh 551.072 deliberations about real property regarding property tax properties located at 7409 Knickerbocker Road we are adjourned from the regular session we will be in executive session and when we turn when business is done Dad cried every year I left for

[2:39:10] pickup moved him on out of there all right we are calling this meeting back to order at exactly 12 18 this meeting is called back to order and there are no amount announcements to be made following the executive session so um and no board nominations any announcements for future agenda items I think we came up with a few during our previous discussions today so now I'm looking for an adjournment motion accepted and voted on everybody we are out of here foreign

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