San Angelo City Council 8-4-15

[0:00:00] It is 904. Let's get this meeting started. We will start with prayer this morning. Mr. Raoul Rodriguez-Ruse, would you release? Would you come up and lead our prayer for us? Our stand is your able place. Good morning. Let's bow our heads. Your Heavenly Father, we just come before you, Lord. And we put all the agendas this morning to the citizens who have been fought this morning, Lord. We pray for city council this morning to give them wisdom for the wonderful staff you put before us Lord we pray for the mayor father we pray for wisdom for strength and for guidance this morning and thank you for having us here today Lord as we put this meeting in your hands today in a name of Jesus we pray Father amen let's get a picture of Mr. Damien Herrera would you please come forward please sir good morning sir how would you come right beside me please Mr. Damon is a five-year-old. He's in the first grade at McGill Elementary and Daniel. I will be assisting Daniel this morning with our pledge to allegiance. You ready? Let's get the American first. Oh, ready? Start us off, buddy. and 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. Let's give it a kiss. To the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas One, and say, under God, one indivisible. Thank you so very much. I don't know who started that policy of having these children come up and do our pledge, but

[0:02:14] I thank you, it was a wonderful, wonderful deal. We now have a proclamation, it's the 80th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act. Ray Vogel, are you here with us from the Social Security Administration? Is there anyone here from Social Security that will accept the recognition? Well, I'm just going to read it and give it to Brian then and he can get it to whoever is supposed to have it. On August the 14th, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. Social Security is a social insurance program under which workers earn coverage for retirement, survivors and disability benefits by paying Social Security taxes on their earnings. Social Security serves as vital financial protection for working men and women children, those with disabilities and the elderly. Social Security also administers a supplemental security income program which is funded by general revenues and provides cash assistance to the aged, blind and disabled persons who have very limited means. The Social Security program is the cornerstone of economic protection on which workers can build a comfortable retirement through pensions, insurance savings and other income. Social Security is committed to providing the American public choices for conducting business with the agency. The Social Security website offers online services, applications, and program information for beneficiaries, employers, and the public. My Social Security allows people quick-convened and secure access to their personal Social Security record. A persona, my Social Security account, is a valuable source of information beginning and always working years and continuing throughout the time they receive Social Security benefits. The City of St. Angelo recognizes the importance of Social Security benefits to the welfare of its citizens and joins the Social Security Administration in celebrating its past and in building its future. Therefore, I, Duane Morris, the mayor of the great City of St. Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the City Council to hereby proclaim August 14, 2015, the great City of St. Angelo joins the nation in celebrating the 80th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act.

[0:04:22] And speaking is one that will be 65 next week. I am very thankful for the Social Security Act. Mary and Meg Minn, would you come forward, please, ma'am? And bring all of your crossing guards with you. We need to recognize these people. These truly are our unsung heroes. And it is, I'm glad that you brought them for us a week of recognizing. Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Well, I'll read this, then I'll allow each one of you to make a 10 or 15 minute speech. The school crossing guards are a special lot. They perform a spectacularly hazardous job by standing in the middle of the street, often navigated by rush to distracted drivers. perform. They're assigned duty in 100 degree heat, icy chills and sideways rain. They suffer abuses, large and small, from road rage motorists to obstinate school children and wide. So the San Angelo's most precious treasures are children and our grandchildren get safely to school and back home again because they love youngsters and because they want to remain active in retirement and contribute to their community. The City of San Angelo's Risk Management Division employs 37 in school crossing and relief guards, and is always looking for new recruits. Guards are supervised by Richard Veron, a former teacher in crossing guard who has worked 16 years for the city. Crossing guard salaries are funded through vehicle registration. Risk management attempts to assign guards to schools in or near their neighborhood, issuing each of the tools of the trade. They've refracted vest, a whistle, a stop sign, a flashlight, a raincoat, and a traffic cone.

[0:06:24] Guards undergo training each August before school starts. These kind folks are too often unappreciated, but not today. Today we love them in expressing our sincere gratitude for the service that they provide to St. Angelo's school children and to our public schools. Therefore I, Duane Morrison, Mayor of the City of St. Angelo on behalf of the city council do hereby recognize and applaud St. Angelo's school crossing guards for their dedication and positive determination to make a difference in our community. Ms. Mangmin, would you, where are you? except this please me. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good morning. Many of you may not realize but school crossing guards are employees of the city of San Angelo and they work under Richard Barone as the mayor said who's been with us almost 16 years and we just can't say enough about our gratitude towards him and how much we appreciate the mayor and the council recognizing them today through the wind, through the hot west Texas weather, through whatever, the rain, the snow, the children, maybe not ready to go to school that morning. They're there every day and we just can't thank them enough. Richard is a great supervisor who works out of our office with us and we're grateful for him. We have many here today who've worked nine years plus. We had one lady retire after working 18 years and another one 23. So y'all can see, some of them are so dedicated, and we just want to say thank you to all of you. Thank you so much.

[0:08:24] So you close it together? Yeah, we'll be done much. We'll be done. I'll come squeeze you. I'll be done. We know who we are. Don't worry about it. All right. You want to put it right here? One, two, three. So I'll just do you need the ladder? You all right, buddy? OK. Thank you all very much. We appreciate you all right. At this time at the meeting we allow we ask for and we appreciate public comment whether pro or con so let me read the legalities and then I'll ask you to line up here to the front and we will take public comment on any issue that you want to talk about that is not already on the agenda. Issues or items that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time. Citizens should speak from the podium, begin by stating their name and limit remarks to less than five minutes. Council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda. The Council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during discussion of those items. So I would ask you please if you have any type of public comment if you want to address the council on any issue. This is your opportunity. I would

[0:10:29] ask you to please line up and come to the front. State your name and you got five. Start with, we'll do one at a time. Thank you, Mayor. R.A. Control, I'm a resident of single member district five and I wanted to just congratulate y'all on that garbage program. I didn't think Anybody could outdo JW loan and embarrass in the city, but you've done it. I want somebody to come out and explain to me why my alley is not my alley anymore. Is the city charter and the animal control, that's on your regular agenda, so I should leave that off for later. I just wanted to thank you for that garbage deal. Do we have any third public comment? I honestly don't know if this is Mary Casper, I'm sorry. I honestly don't know if this is on your regular agenda or not, but Mr. Silva, I saw that you were very passionate about wanting an APC for the police department. Ms. Gonzalez, in 2014 for the big election, we went to a lady over in your area that needed a ride to for early voting. Never met the lady before at all, Mrs. Hill. older woman, and on the short drive from her house over East of Bell, north of Goodfellow, she shared with us that she was very worried about her neighborhood. And she wanted the city to come up with something that would get the kids off the streets in her neighborhood. That's what she was really

[0:12:30] passionate about. So I suggest that each of you talk to your constituents and find out if they are passionate about spending 300 to $600,000 on an APC or if they want something that can be done for the youth of the city. Her concern was that everything that is out there for them is too expensive. That's all I have. Thank you. further public comment I forgot it again you better report writing stuff down I'm gonna have to I'll mention it later on is there any further public comment all right then I will start at the council and we'll start with Usement grind staff if there's anything that you would like to say if there are any items on the consented agenda that you would like to pull to the irregular this is the time I don't have anything to pull off the agenda today or the consent agenda and for my district We are not having a neighborhood chat this month. Mr. Cantrell thought that I just didn't invite him But in fact, we're taking a break for the summer and so will resume after school get started. So anyway, all right. You have missed nothing Thank you mayor Yes, I am having a town hall meeting this Thursday night At 6 p.m. That's Thursday, August 6th at 6th at City Hall First floor east side meeting room the meeting will be to discuss your Unhappiness and your dislikes and this is because the number of phone calls or texts that I have received With the new trash contract it's your opportunity to speak

[0:14:34] You didn't get to go to any of the other town halls. This will be a one-on-one with me and it'll be for just one hour because my daughter is celebrating her 51st birthday that evening so you're all invited to come if you'd like or if you're not happy is it something even though I'm not your council member you more than welcome to come and discuss and get answers hopefully the city manager will be there and Shane Kelton will be there and some folks from Republic have said that they will be there. The other thing I wanted to thank Tina again, Tina, I can't even begin to say your new last name. There you are. You know, I asked for something at a City Council meeting to be brought up to date and the next day or within two days, this lady has a written answer for you and I wanted the City Manager to know that and thank her publicly for her efforts. With reference to the agenda, I'd like to pull item F and to item H and that's all I have, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Silas, no sir, I don't have anything. Mr. Marty. Nothing. Mr. Rodney. I met with the text dot engineers this week, and I just wanted to thank them for how quickly they got back to us on the traffic problem that we're having at Highway 277 in Grand Canal. And they're coming up with some real solutions that I thought actually surprised me that they did and some quick things. So in the next month, we don't have a set date yet, but we're gonna do a small town hall meeting over in my area, district one, discussing what the possibilities are on helping with the problem there in that intersection. So I just wanna thank those engineers for doing the work that I asked of them very quickly. They're trying, aren't they? They're trying very hard. They are really trying. All right, if this is, if there's nothing else,

[0:16:34] I have two items on the consent, That would be F and H that have been pulled. So I will entertain a motion to approve because consent agenda five items A through J with the exception of F and H. So moved. Who saved something down here, Muddy? So moved. Who said second? Second. OK, I do have a motion. I do have a second. Do I have a public comment on the consent agenda before we take the vote? Do I have any comment from the council before we take our vote? All in favor of approving the consent agenda with the exceptions of F and H, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed nay? Put a 7-0 on that one, please, Mr. Brian. Number F is consider authorizing the city manager to execute an inter-local agreement between public safety communications and the Consul Valley Council of GO, but for E-9-1-1, public safety answering part, services being effective from September 1, 215 to August 31, 217. Mr. Famp, I believe this is your Charlotte. What's the what you got? My question is this, it doesn't mention a dollar amount, but when you go to the attachment when it gets to the financial investment amount, it says that's contingent upon this agreement. So I really need to know what kind of money are were we talking about till 2017? Zero. Basically, that just the money amount is for the equipment that the COG provides in our PSAP at the 911 center. And that includes, you know, like different pieces of equipment for the 911 system itself. It's part of the inventory and agreement, and they carry that on there, and it's just an agreement. They will furnish certain pieces of equipment for the PSAP since they're the regional controller of the 911 system, we have the PSAP that is where it all comes in and out of.

[0:18:35] So there's really not any financial expectations that we're gonna be responsible for as a city. Okay, Chief, you know, even if I'm not on council, I'm going to remember this item and I'm gonna, you know, you're saying zero financial. Yes ma'am, this is the exact same agreement. Yes ma'am, this is the exact same agreement we've had in the back for years. Did someone say move to approve? I did, and Johnny says that. I heard the second, but that didn't mean you, Charlie. We do have a motion to accept this, and the price is right. I'll like the price. I just want to double check. Yes, ma'am. We do have a motion to do. Do I have further comment, counsel? Do I have public comment? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Put a 7-0 on that one. The H is considering rejecting a submission by Consul Cruises and Marina, PL 0115 for Resort Development at Mary E. Lee Park, Ms. Farber. Ms. Farber. Yes, if I missed the meeting and I don't believe that I did rejecting a submission by Consul Cruises. I've never seen anything. This is one of our citizens here in San Angelo that has a business, wants to improve on his business and planning or your department just rejected it and you're asking me to reject something that I've not seen what the plan is that. We haven't rejected anything. We did lay out in the RFQ that we met with you all on in two different executive sessions. We did put that out to the public. That was published back in March of 2015. We had that open for a 60 day window. We ended up extending that because there were no responses. And the RF, I'm sorry, RFP not RFQ outlined the instructions for the submittals. there were several criteria that they were required to show that they met, and there were several pieces of information that they were required to include with their submission. The submitter did not meet all of those, follow all of those criteria and did not provide all of the required documents. So that is termed an unresponsive bidder, and per state law, we are required to bring

[0:20:38] this to you. We cannot administratively reject the proposal. I'm sorry, Ajay, did you say, and I am, I do have a hearing problem, but did you say we are not rejecting it? Now if has not rejected anything, only the council has the authority to do a rejection of the submittal and that's why we have it on the agenda for you today. And in this particular case, we didn't receive, this was the only proposal we received, this was out of the Lake Nazareth stuff, that was posted everything as we legally do. We didn't receive any other proposals. So at this point, the one that we did receive did not meet the qualifications was not put in properly. will be closing it, not taking any. And at some point in the future, Council may choose to open this up again for public to try and make an investment there. Okay. Well, I still have a problem with it saying reject the submission. And I don't know exactly what you're rejecting of his submission. You said that we set a criteria, but I didn't have any background to tell me what it was that the submission didn't meet. I call me interest where the I that's my problem. Okay I understand that again we had minimum requirements. We actually also had a meeting where we invited anyone that had even a remote interest in the possibility of submitting to sit down and ask questions and talk through it with us. This particular submitter was at that meeting and we went through the requirements of what had to be turned in for this to be considered. The things that have to be turned in for it to be considered were not turned in. Okay but for my information sitting up here cold if the background information or if I could click to the items or what it was that they didn't meet it's it's a whole lot easier to vote on if I have something to go with it it's all I'm asking. We'll try and provide that in future for you Charlotte. Thank you. Somebody want to move on this we can deal with it. Do you need a motion to approve? I'll move to approve that item as

[0:22:43] presented. This is not going to terminate the contract that he has now Now though, this is for the future. It's a separate thing. I'll second that. You've got to, on these RFPs, we have it. It's all spelled out, which you have to turn in, and we make every resident or citizen of the city do the same things. Anybody else would have had to done the same thing. He didn't turn in everything. And I hope we do reopen this, and he does turn on all this stuff, and then we won't have to worry about it. So I'll second it. That's right. Council comments. public comment. I do understand what Mr. Fleming is saying and I do agree with it wholeheartedly but I'm going to vote against this simply because I'm not aware of what it was if it's major items minor items or nitpicking items it's I'm not comfortable with it so I will vote against it. Thank you. Public comment call for the motion the motion has been made that we approve the rejection as proposed all in favor please say aye. Opposed nay nay let's put a 6-1 on that one Brian Let's move on out to the regular agenda item, which is a category six Category 6a is consideration and direction regarding a proposed ordinance many chapter eight of city and San Angelo code of ordinances By adding an exception under section 801 005 noise prohibited for noise occurring school, university for noise occurring own school, university or city owned property related to school or university sponsored activity or event. I am the one that asks for this and the reason I have asked for it is because school is about to start. Our bands and all of our area schools meet early in the morning to practice so that they can practice before school and our current ordinance I think says this cannot be done before seven o'clock. Our Our school kids are getting up there at 6.30 to start to practice. Also they also go to, I'm asking that it be amended to start at 6.30 and go to 11.30

[0:24:48] at night so that we can protect our school children and school activities on school sponsored and school functions. Caroline, did you want to speak on this, ma'am? Absolutely. You just eye candy then. Yes. Just eye candy. What happens when you retire? That's good. She's looking for somebody to boss. Yeah, no. Caroline, you can come up and boss us if you want to. Come on up front, swing here. We need to get our instructions cleanly. Last week, my last week on the job, the young man who took my place came in and asked me what I was doing today doing today and I told him nothing. And so we asked if I could come because I was involved in this situation with one of our bands last year and so I revisited with the high school principal and Mr. Althouse yesterday and so I'm here to answer any questions. I will say this, that the band does their practice before school because many, and I know my husband says many is not a number, but many of these young people have jobs after school. They've tried to move it and it cut the band numbers down so much. So we would just appreciate being able for those young people for those young people to start practicing between 6.30 and 6.45. Do you agree we need to do everything we can to facilitate these students that are willing to? Yes, sir. And they're, they get there and so many people in our society think young people are not doing good things and these are kids that are trying really, really hard and they're working after

[0:26:52] school so that was so I appreciate it Mayor Marston and all of you all thank you and I'm available to do help you just stay there for just a minute in case we need a question so I wanted to make a statement I think this is a perfect opportunity for us to match the earlier statement about the nothing for kids to do get them off the street so if they can tooth their horns or pound their drums or yelling scrimmages and whatnot, I'm all for it to help the students. Me too. Move for approval. Second. Second. Second. Oh, you already seconded? Okay, I do have Rodney. I said approve it. Charlie said I'm shaking it. Any comments from Council other than what's already been made any further? I just don't want to make you really have nothing to do. Well, I really have stuff to do, but this was important to me. So I'll find the committee. I have public comment on this item before we vote, all in favor to amend the hours to 6.30 a.m. until 11.30 p.m. for school sponsor activities, please say aye. Any opposed say Okay, drop a 7-0 on that one. Thank you, Ms. Bonds. Okay, thank you all. Ev number D is discussion and direction on the development and implementation of a mandatory animal spay, neuter, MSN, ordinance. Mr. Silas. If Council doesn't mind, I'd actually like to have James floors do the presentations and see that the animal shelter knows the issues and the problems better than I do. So James. Mr. Flowers. Good morning. Mayor, Council City Manager. And you do seem to have a lot of people here behind you. Well I hope so. We're going to introduce a mandatory spading to ordinance or a possibly discussion of so I'll start that. Just some key numbers

[0:28:56] that I'd like to discuss since January 2014 over 10,000 animals enter the shelter. 7,000 of those are unfortunately put down. Some staggering numbers are a female cat plus her offspring in 7 years can produce 420,000 animals. A female dog in her offspring is about 67,000 in 6 years. So obviously there's some staggering numbers regarding that. Obviously there's high cost to maintain animal controls, facilities, medications, licenses, stuff like that, and of course staff. We do have some tools available along with the spay-neuter ordinance that we currently have employed, which is for ACO positions, some educational efforts through the Spade Nutter Initiative Program, and then of course we do promote adoption as much as possible and the end result sometimes is euthanasia. We just need some more tools and this mandatory Spade Nutter would help us better align these numbers that are rather staggering. The benefits of Spade Nutter, it's a real safe, simple surgery, females are spade, males are neutered. It definitely reduces where it eliminates the risk of certain types of cancer. And then it obviously changes the behavior of the animal. Pets tend to better interact with their human families. And there's less fighting, spraying and roaming. A big number with that is 85% of companion animals or hit by cars are not fixed. That's the reason roaming or that's where Spainewter does help in the roaming category. That's a staggering number there. The actual ordinance, animals over four months old is what we're proposing or what we're looking at to start with to create a Spainewter ordinance and of course that's a microchipped event as well. Recommended exceptions, professional breeders. We definitely want a category for the professional breeder

[0:30:57] with current breeders, permits and microchip info. there is medical reasons to not span neuter. Obviously we want to be cognizant of that. Competition of animals, law enforcement specialty dogs, those are areas that we are willing to take a look at and allow those animals to not be spayed or neutered. We need to provide some low-cost options. I think if you're not aware recently, we restructured a lot at the shelter, and one of the big goals I had for the shelter was to bring on board of veterinarian and luckily through not filling some positions and finding some money, we obviously have that position available today and we do have applicants for that. So my long-term vision was really a need to provide low-cost options. That's typically the biggest hindrance in this category. I think we as a city with a licensed veterinarian on board could provide these options and I would love to divulge into that later on. Of course, fines need to be established and enforced. We would need to allow time for citizens to get ready. We're proposing about a six-month event. Of course, it's up to you guys, but I think six months is well in line with what we're asking. And we would obviously be a secondary enforcement aspect. This is not going to be a going down to everybody's house, knocking on doors and checking your dog and cat for spay-neuter. It's going to be a secondary enforcement. animals at large. We find the animal, it's not spater neuter, the repercussions of a possible citation do exist under this ordinance. So it's secondary enforcement. Any questions or concerns that I could help out with? I have one. I agree with what you're trying to do and how you're trying to turn things around. I truly support that. The only thing that I don't like is, you know, we are a free society and I have a dog. I think everybody

[0:32:58] in my family is a dog. And those dogs, they become part of the family. They're not pets anymore. They're part of the family. And if I have an exceptionally well-mannered or smart or well-trained animal. For its aging, its life is not going to be as long as mine. I may want to find someone and breed the dog so that I can have a pet or a daughter or son of that pet. And if you make it mandatory across the board, that can happen unless I'm a licensed breeder. And that I do have a problem with, because if we allow any one household to have up to six pets, if I have to become a licensed breeder, and to have all of my pets spayed or neutered or forced to, it's not right, it takes away a freedom, and I don't agree with that. I don't know what the answer is, so I'm asking you, what is the answer if you put all dogs? Would it be all animals that come through the shelter will be spayed or neutered? And hopefully I will be a more responsible citizen and make sure that my pet is not roaming the streets or gets picked up by animal control because the chance of it being spayed or neutered would that be an option? Absolutely. Again, I think we're bringing up a proposal to divulge into with guidance and recommendations from council. But I think when you look at the overall picture to address those issues, we're not the first city to get into this business. We're actually one of the furthest behind. So there's some very good processes and protocols that we would go extract from personally visit, which we have and implement those same processes and procedures. I think the ultimate go with

[0:35:01] secondary enforcement will be that exact thing. The animal that the animal control officer picks up off the streets it's loose and roaming or going down and knocking trash cans down up to the one that is surrendered. That's I think the secondary enforcement aspect could be tweaked in to include some type of you know protocol that other successful shelters or cities have done similar in I want to add, my dog now has been for a long time. He's now chipped also because he did get out, but he is chipped. I just see it as a citizen responsibility. But for those that are responsible, I don't want to be penalized with those that aren't. If I'm forcing all dogs across the board it's it's forcing me in taking away my right to make the decision sure I don't know how the other council members feel hadn't talked to anybody but I'm for everything on there except the mandatory all animals in the city unless you pick them up I understand that well absolutely and again it's it in my line of work it's all about numbers I mean at the end of the day that's really all we deal with and the numbers are astronomically high in the intake business and if you go to certain websites locally that sell animals, what doesn't sell is what ends up my inventory. So I think we're trying to be proactive in the approach of hindering that ability to lessen the intake number which in turn saves the city money through staff and medicines and all kinds of other stuff. But microchip is a part of this ordinance and I'm a firm believer now that microchip is probably better than any tag you can hang on a collar. We are finding more animals now that we're equipped technology-wise to skin an animal. We can instantly find the owner, provide better customer service,

[0:37:03] take that dog back to your house, and just hang a door knocker saying hey we found your dog and say if it's in the backyard versus entering the shelter prior to microchip and technology. Don't you still have to pay a fine for them though? If you if they're go to the shelter and you're gonna hang that little thing on in the door. Don't you still have to pay a fine for the dog being shot? No, my implication of using the customer service area with the microchip was that's going to prevent the citizen from having to do that. In my professional opinion, we're already out there. We're already in your district. If we find a dog and we scan it and it shows James Flores 123, Uni-West, and Angel, Texas, I think it's prudent and just public service to take that animal back to its original owner. maybe it's a sender block that we need to put up against the fence and that's how it got out. So no, you're not fine. Is there fees for me having your dog at the shelter and you get it out? Absolutely. It's not of a criminal element. It's more of a $18 processing fee, $10 kenneling, minor stuff. Now, if you wanted to leave today with an unaltered dog from the shelter, it is a $200 plus all the other cost in position. The other benefit to what James is talking about is he keeps that animal control officer out there in the field moving, taking care of business, instead of driving back and forth with animals. So it's not just a benefit on the customer side, it's a benefit from an efficiency standpoint also. Sure. Elizabeth? I have a lot to say about it, but I'll try to choose my words carefully. James, you know that we had a neighborhood chat where a lot of people in this room came and it was quite a large turnout. R.A. was out of town that day or couldn't make it. Or we would have heard his opposition to this. But I felt compelled to talk about it

[0:39:06] because it's very concerning to me that we've killed 7,000 animals in a year and a half. I don't think that shows responsibility on the part of the individual. I also have an intact female at my house and that is my intent because she's of a breeding quality. I'm very careful with her and I'm very willing to do what's necessary for the common good to keep her in her yard when it's necessary. I do all the time anyway or she's on a leash, but I'm not afraid of talking about this simply because I also have an intact female because I'm willing to go through a process to keep her that way and show my responsibility. But for 7,000 animals that have been destroyed of no fault of their own, but simply because of irresponsible owners somewhere along the line, I think is a conversation that we need to have and I appreciate you looking into this. I know there's a number of other cities that y'all have mentioned to me that are mid-sized cities in Texas that have the same feeling of individual rights that have gone to this because they also don't want to be destroying animals constantly. To me that's a burden on the taxpayer who may or may not have a pet. So I, again, I'm very willing to look into this and I haven't done any exploration into what the other communities are doing, but I do believe there's something that we can learn from other communities and that we need to be willing to talk about this because there is a cost in sheltering and we want a shelter to return pets to their owners. We want a shelter to adopt, but we don't want to be in the kill business and to me that's where we're going very quickly. Right. And I'd like to add, I mean, you're exactly right. You know, in the state of Texas, or actually nationally, the kill rate is 60%. However, you want to take that. In Texas, it's

[0:41:11] higher than that. But in Texas communities, it's way lower. And I think this will help us get to that way lower number. I don't know what it is. I haven't been there long enough, but I sure not only did everything you say is correct, but you got to remember there's usually one or two people that are paid to do that and that's their job and it's not only a responsibility issue but it's a psychological effect on staff as well, that day brings everybody down. So you're exactly right. I think we're prepared. We've got some great civic-minded individuals amongst the community that do come out and support us and have been involved with this and they got on the bandwagon and we're pretty prepared to come forward depending on what your direction and your your your guidance is can you tell us what is happening I know there used to be a what was it kind of a no fault drop off I think no guilt no guilt drop off and I think that's gone away but are we as taxpayers in San Angelo are we supporting sheltering or euthanasia for the region as well well one time I heard there was a lot of correct animals being brought in from surrounding communities. There was and it was a ton. We have stopped that about June 1st is when we kind of officially stopped that. You know anybody that's coming in there we we recently just had this situation. We've met the scenario and you know if they really just didn't know I'm gonna take those animals because I don't want them to end up somewhere else. But we take them with this is the last time typically that's followed up by a city clerk from that smaller community or a city administrator from that smaller community. Once they understand, or once we talk to them, they understand, because it's about $71 a day, and I stopped doing the math at $71 a day for an animal to come into our shelter.

[0:43:11] That's everything, that's water, light, ficus, a security hourly rate, the whole nine yards. So I stopped at 71, and when you explain that to a city that's dumping 25 a week on you and giving you a bag of food, they understand that pretty quick. So we did stop that as of June 1. Johnny? I was just going to say for the second time, I'm going to move to approve this item as presented. That 7,000, that number really caught my attention. And so I'm ready to move forward with it. I think it's for directions. It's for directions, OK. Right, just directions. I'm all forward, James. I appreciate what you guys are trying to do out there. Again, euthanizing that grade of a number is very alarming. And so for the sake of discussion, I prove the idea. Absolutely. But that number does include the surrounding counties that have brought dogs in. Correct. And that number also includes, you know, I'm changing this as I'm learning more about the numbers. We include which that 60 percentile national kill does not include skunks, raccoons, snakes, birds, whatever it might be. Ours does include all that. So in the actual dog and cat business it's probably a little lesser than that because we do have a ton of possums and skunks and raccoons and they're just it's every day and we get those in there. So I'm breaking that down so for my board's sake hopefully next month or two we'll have accurate number the number is the number but I want to break it down to show true dog true cat tree skunk true raccoon blah blah blah. So while life's out of control. Yes man. Further comments down here. Comments down here. I do have a couple of questions. Yes sir. We already have a mandatory license and shot for all of our animals. The last I heard we've got about a 5% compliance on that it might still is that still in the ballpark on the life that every one in

[0:45:16] our city license and register their animals right and it's about 5% of the population that's doing it that's what it was several years ago I don't know mayor to answer that honestly that sounds very low but I will say that that process is definitely needs to get looked into because of the way that we did this you know it is an affair opportunity for the veterinarian that has to sell it because of the, wow, the long number that goes in this book that's handwritten per tag. It's a taxation on the veterinarian or clubs out there that are trying to promote this license. But it's also a taxation for my admin. Again, if we could do away with that process and incorporate a microchip, it's done there at the facility. I'm not sending out tags to the vet. I'm not having to go collect from the vet. they're not having to send me a check. It's a monstrosity right now. I don't know what the figure is of compliance. Five sounds very low, but it could be that low. But I don't have an accurate number for you. It may be my member. When we dealt with the number of dogs, I thought that that was the figure that we were given that there was about a 5% compliance rate with a mandatory ordinance. Also, isn't there an ordinance in effect right now that says if you pick a dog up and take a cat up and pick him into the shelter, they have to be neutered or spade before they're allowed to go. So that's already an ordinance, is it? Well, you have the option. No, sir. If you want to pay the additional. Yes, and so many people pay it. I had four the other day and it was $1,100 and they paid it. My problem with this, and it's a good, it's a feel good ordinance. I mean, we're trying to do the right thing and it's a good, it really makes you feel good ordinance, but I don't put any faith in that it's going to work. And I do not like the word mandatory. We do have some rights left, Not many, but we still have a few rights left in this country. And I do not like this mandatory. Now, my dogs are neutered. And I wanted them neutered.

[0:47:17] But I don't want you telling me I have to neutered them. But then you go get a breeder's permit. I don't want to get a breeder's permit. When you say mandatory, there is an option. And I think we just need to be clear that at least what's being proposed now and here for discussion is there is an option for those of us to have a desired breed. And again, from a shelter perspective, I think Mr. Weiss could have tested to this at the end of the day, it's about the numbers. And that budget is only getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, because the intake's getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. So this is simply a tool that we are trying to enact, like every other city that has successful shelters. It correlates with it. It really just helps that environment out because when you stand at the door and in 24 working days, 649 animals come in in a month, boy, it's all about the numbers. And I don't mind us advertising, I don't mind issuing coupons for spake. We've already done that and we've worked on those products. I don't mind doing that. I think it's good. I think it's good to educate, but I don't like the word mandatory. Sure. And I think it's going to work because I don't think people, when you make an ordinance that is unreasonable or that's not acceptable. People are not going to follow it. Yes, ma'am. When you're mentioning the licensing and you're talking about how difficult it is to I guess just to administer that whether it be from the vet side or your side, as we maybe talk about this again, can we talk about that as well and also the we require a vaccine every year rabies vaccine on a vaccine that has a longer life yes man and and that's a relief that we can provide to the pet owner because I'm not sure why we're requiring it annually if the vaccine itself is good for over

[0:49:17] three years correct can we can we put all that together he's asking for direction and that's what I was about to do is go down the line and let's give him direction. Start with you Rodney. No I agree with what Liz just said I mean that could help save some money on that part of it but my I'm in favor of moving forward on this as presented and maybe do the little changes that that could come forward to save them money on the other things. Marty. First of all we get a second to the motion. It's not an issues this is just direction. We're just giving you one second at Marty you jump right out there. It's just consensus. I was opposed to it totally when I walked in, but after hearing James and I think we need to move forward and basically tell what was said and see if we can't get something that will work. I don't think it's going to be an easy fix. I think it may come back and force several times, but I think we need to move in that direction. I know what Johnny Thanks just add that that I do Now that you mentioned that word mandatory James. I think that may be hard to To have people follow that rule, you know, absolutely if I don't want to do it I'm not gonna do it and not let you know about it But so maybe tweaking that a little bit may make it easier. I don't know, but I'm all for Try trying to save the lives of these animals that are being put down. Sure And I've said my piece, Charlotte, do you want to say any more? Well, James, I support everything that you're trying to do and make it better and certainly save on killing, you know, our cats and dogs. It's kind of like children, they didn't have to be put into this world and it's not right, but it's not right to let them starve or die of infection. I don't like the word mandatory.

[0:51:17] I don't like telling an owner, a pet owner, that they have to do it. Now mine, they're done, but that's my choice. I would like to see some tweaking on that because it just needs to be done. I'm curious if we issued the license instead of the vet issuing them, if that would help. We already know that people are not getting their dog's license, so making it mandatory have a spader neutered probably isn't going to work. It's mandatory. But if we work with people that if you're a good pet owner, we're not going to see your pet. We're not going to know. But if you're irresponsible pet owner, you risk your animal being spader neutered if it's picked up. Right. And I think that's the key word with secondary enforcement. compliance does this on a daily basis and even in that business that the citations are not high there's a lot of communication there's a lot of extensions there's a lot of working with and that's how it should be I think at the end of the day the real culprits of code violators are dealt with after being forewarned and after giving extensions and I don't envision that to change in the dog world it's it's the same thing you're enforcing an ordinance and at the end of the day the people that are just really breaking it are the ones that are going to get dealt with, not people like ourselves who have spayed and neutered dogs. You know, there are situations that I'll use mine. My dog's licensed and my dog's fixed. My dog was taken from my yard and I didn't think I would be as heartbroken and upset and distraught. I mean, I bet I was out of shelter two or three times looking for my dog and posting papers everywhere. Luckily, my dog was returned and that's when I got the chip put in. It's being responsible for your pet and we need to emphasize that to the people.

[0:53:17] It's really up to you. It's up to you. It is. I mean, again, this is just a tool to use and utilize to help promote a lesser intake number. Well, I'm all for it. They get out. They get fixed. Right. Miss Lizzie. Oh, I don't need to repeat myself. Y'all have said it all. I agree with y'all. Are you, you have anything else, Liz? I would love to repeat myself, but I won't. Mayor? Yes. I just want to express my gratitude to James and his staff for the work that they're doing. He's, they've received a lot of criticism for some of the changes that they're implementing. Here's an example of an opportunity for us to reduce the kill rate by reducing the number of animals going into the shelter. And I am very appreciative of James and what they're trying to do at this point. And I think a lot of times citizens don't understand the efforts that are being put forth behind the scenes. And I've seen a lot of it. And I've seen James work some very long hours till midnight, many times. I've already told him he needs to get himself home. But there's an absolute labor of love on his part as far as what he's trying to do. And I wish everyone would just give him that opportunity. He's only been there a couple of months, you know, give him the opportunity. I think he's going to make some tremendous changes. And we'll see some great things from that shelter. So again, James, I want to thank you and your staff for everything you do. James, welcome to our world. You did a great building. Do you have direction, sir? Yes, sir. I do. I appreciate it. Then it's 959. I'm going to call it 15 minute break. My mistake, my mistake, I miss public comment and that is a no-no. So we are going to allow public comment and then we will take our 15 minutes. So sorry, Marty. Your first, state's your name, you've got five.

[0:55:17] My name is Jillian Hadad, and I'm just here in support of the spay and neuter ordinance or program. And I just wanted to express my support of it. I think it's a good first step towards a movement. I would say that this area of the country is a little bit behind with the strays and up north I'm from Wisconsin and if I go to the Humane Society they have a big huge Humane Society that has 120 kennels and they have 10 dogs. So I think 10 years ago they were pushing these spay-neuter programs and now they're seeing the results because there's not very many animals there. So I think it's just a good step and a good first movement towards a better life for all these animals. So that's all. Thank you. Thanks. Yes ma'am. My name is Pam Monday and I just wanna say I'm in support of this. I think it's a non-necessary tragedy. There were killing so many animals each year. And I just want to say I'm 100% support support of it. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Hello, I'm Leanna Hartrove. And I just want to let you know that I am in support of this ordinance. Like many of you up there, I don't like the government telling me what to do. But in this case, you know, it's an exception because of so many animals getting euthanized. I think that one thing we might could do after listening to all the conversation is instead of just having an exception for breeders, I don't know how exactly to word it, but maybe have an exception or a certification for someone who's willing to prove they're a responsible owner like yourselves. So you actually get a, you know, it's free, but you basically prove that you're a responsible owner and problem solving, you know, you're not a certificate. case, you know, your animal gets out or whatever. But the vast majority of people in this town

[0:57:22] are not responsible owners. And for most all of us, we can walk away today and go home and this is all outside of mine and we don't have to worry about the animals today. You know, 20 or 30 animals a day aren't being left on our doorstep, you know, and just do the math and, you know, I would be completely overwhelmed, but anyway, long story short, I'm currently forming an organization, and I'm in the very early stages of a group of people who are going to try to help reduce the use of the nature rate. And I've done some homework online and so far every successful community that I've researched all circles around a good substantial spay-neuter effort, whether it be an ordinance or low cost, basically no cost spay-neuter program. So I think that if we can just start with that, and I know everybody's freaked out about that word mandatory, but people aren't responsible, and if you are responsible like myself, all my animals are fixed. But if they weren't because of an issue like yours, because my animals right now are my children because of my I'm an empty nester so if I did have an animal that I wanted to possibly breathe someday I would go to the effort of proving to the city that I'm responsible so I just I'm asking you to please we could make exceptions we can make this ordinance work but I think it's the first step and actually reducing the intake because if we don't reduce the intake we're not We're not doing any good. Thanks. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right, Council still. Elizabeth, I was at your town hall meeting about the pets, but you intimidated me into not speaking. You had a big,

[0:59:25] mean policeman up there. He just kept eyeing me like he's going to knock me out if I said anything. Yes, we did. But you said it was for those other people, I don't believe you. I wish you'd find a way to address the real problem rather than address a blanket problem, find the irresponsible pet owners, stop it. They're not pet owners, they're irresponsible people who happen to have dogs around. At Elizabeth Town Hall meeting, I think that the folks from the shelter said we have a big problem with pit bulls in Chihuahua's, which floored me. I didn't have any idea that Chihuahua's were a problem, but that's the big deal. We We have too many to always, too many pit bulls. I wish you'd take positive steps to go and stop the people who are doing what's wrong rather than pestering the people who are doing nothing. The TSA, when you go get on an airplane because we got attacked on 9-11, they pester everybody rather than going after the people who are actually doing something. If you take proactive measures to find and stop the problem rather than pestering the whole population, I think it'd be a better way to go. Thanks. Oh, I remember what that other thing it was that I couldn't remember. Can I say something about it? On your website, is that still, is it up and running? No, you can't. Well, you'll have to come back next meeting. Write it down. I'll forget the piece of paper. The attorney says no, so she debossed. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Jennifer McCon. I have been in touch with James, actually, quite frequently over the shelter. I'm a military family member, moved here, we've traveled Hawaii, Washington State, D.C., it doesn't operate like this. Because of strong spay and neuter programs, you don't have the problem that you have here.

[1:01:26] I highly, highly encourage you to hear him out. A 7,000 euthanasia rate is absurd and it's just unnecessary. I had a dog, I didn't neuter him until he was six. I didn't have the behavior problems, I didn't have, he wasn't a roamer, but I ended up neutering him late in life. I don't think, like the mandatory thing isn't gonna be a problem for the people who are good pet owners. I think they understand that unfortunately in any situation, the few that are good are gonna have to sacrifice some for the many that can't behave and can't monitor their pets. I encourage you, I myself, and took James up on a visit to the shelter. I saw things that I don't like that are changing, but this is something that I'm in complete support of. This would be a great thing for your city assuming it's enforced. If it's an open-ended ordinance that isn't enforced, they think you'll have the same trouble you have now. But that's my two cents. Thank you very much. Yes ma'am. Good morning, my name is Vicki Jones and I am for this ordinance. As James said, he's not gonna go knocking on door to door to make sure, check him tails to make sure your dog and cat are spayed or neutered. If you're a responsible pet owner and your dog doesn't enter the shelter, You shouldn't have to worry about your dog or cat being spayed or neutered. My dogs, I have three, actually I'm a foster for one, but my dogs are spayed and they're microchipped and they're current on all shots. One of them, as a couple of the ladies stated, they're not spayed, one of mine isn't, but she hasn't left her yard in six years. And if she got out, I could prove that she's completely taken care of. As a responsible pet owner,

[1:03:26] I think this ordinance is a great thing for this community. I see the animals every day being given away, these puppies being given away because they've been bred and bred, and it's heartbreaking. So they go to the shelter because people say, well, if they can't find a home, we're gonna give them to the shelter. and then they get put to sleep. So as somebody, such as myself that sees this every day, hit the news on Facebook and social media, I think this ordinance is a great thing. And I hope y'all vote for it. Thank you, ma'am. Hi, Jenny. Good morning, I'm Jenny Wilson, the Consul Valley Pause. And I want to preface what I'm about to say with the fact that I, as a person, am not a fan of adding another law. I understand what that does and the perception it gives to how we're having our individual liberties infringed upon. But having said that, I've been in this business of rescues since 2008. And every week, I go into the shelter. And every week, I look into those eyes. And every week, more than half of them die. It's horrific. And it's real easy for all of us to sit in this room and talk about this in theory and what it means. And what it means to us as individual taxpayers and what our rights are, but when you go on that shelter and you see the despair and you can feel the fear, something has to change. I'm not saying that this is the absolute right answer, but I can tell you you're not going to kill your way out of this situation, and sadly I don't think we can adopt our way out of it either. We've been very fortunate to have a great relationship with James and the current staff. We've done some fantastic adoption programs that have been successful, and at the end of the day we're like, yay, we adopted out 25, we adopted out 17 and three hours, and we get motivated, and the next day 35 to 40 come through a store.

[1:05:29] We've got to do something, we're amping up the adoptions, which is fantastic, we've got to do something to impact how many go in. Now I will say about the Pitbulls and the Chawal was we know that that is a huge population concern at this shelter. That is the most those of the most commonly euthanized breeds. And Contravally Paws provides free spay and neuter vouchers for Pitbulls and Chihuahuas. But guess what? People are not knocking down my door to get those free vouchers. We have some people take advantage of it and we're so grateful, but we see them on Facebook all the time advertising their new litter of Chihuahuas and especially their blue Pitbulls. And we'll go on those swap inside spaces and we'll advertise, hey, you can get it fixed for free. And the things they have to say back to us are atrocious. They don't care about that dog. They don't care about what they're doing to the shelter, whether or not they're having an impact on the number of animals euthanized. All they care about is how much money they're making. Something has to stop. I'm not for legislating morality, but what are we going to do? Every year the number of animals euthanized that shelter has increased since I've been involved. year and every year the budget has had to increase in response. When I started rescue I think the animal shelter was working in a $600,000 budget you're at $855,000 today. So I implore you to really consider this look at it if you're not an animal lover just look at the amount of money you're spending on the shelter and the result is 7,000 animals a year ending up in the landfill. Something has to be done so I'm asking to please seriously consider this if we can be of of any assistance, this is something that I personally support, that consularly pause supports, something has to change for these animals. Thank you so much. Thank you, ma'am. That'll be great. Craig Myers, all of the concern about mandatory, I think we're talking about whose mandatory responsibilities

[1:07:34] are being legislated and who aren't. I'm one of the reasons that you people have to go through the problem of getting and license inspection sticker, because I'm not very compliant. And I see what you folks drive. You've seen what I drive. And because my exhaust pipe may hang down if I didn't have to get it fixed. And my taillights not all be working at the same time. And so mandatory is not a frightening word. It's not a very intrusive word. But I think one of the things we need to look at is the fact that that 7,000 number that keeps getting thrown out there is a tiny fraction of what we're dealing about. I have this horrible nightmare that reoccurs mostly because it's about an incident that occurred about six years ago that totally destroyed my West Texas manly man ego and you know that's very precious to me but the city was doing a sweep on the west side of town, the police department, code compliance and animal control to do sweep, to correct a lot of complaints that had been coming out there, and they asked a few of us if we would walk the neighborhood and hand out flyers to let the people know so they could correct themselves before that sweep occurred. Knowing that animal control was one of those, we knew that we were going to encounter some animals. You know, as a man, you know, you walk through there and I wear jeans in the whole bit and so if you encounter a German Shepherd or something, you know, you can do whatever is necessary and if you encounter a rottweiler that's following you, you get nervous but you do what you want to do. But when you turn a corner and a chihuahua comes out and starts nipping at your heels and yapping, you know, you can't kick the dog, that's unseemly. And so you sort of walk along and try to keep him off your pat legs. But when he keeps barking and there's a dozen of them, then it really becomes an embarrassment. And everybody's watching your reaction.

[1:09:34] At the end of that first block, they were over 12 dogs. They organized. Because when they hit the end, four of them quit. And there were 12 more of the next block. And when we finished that three block area, there were almost 30 lousy chihuahuas. not only Chihuahua. 30 lousy Chihuahua was out there. Now, the problem I have that this relates to is as you looked at that one figure, we're not talking about 7,000 kills, we're talking about out of the couplings of 30 Chihuahua's running loose. There's at least 15 litters that are going to occur and out of that litter, and we're talking tens of thousands of animals possibly and the problem is 7,000 of them don't get killed. Probably 90% of the rest of them are left at a rest stop because some irresponsible person thinks that a nice individual is going to pick it up. Some of them just kill the litters because that's what they've done all their lives when they have a problem. Some of them just run away and they die horrible deaths of starvation. It's a public safety issue because in that neighborhood two sides of it are in open ground where they're going to interact with other folks. This is a public safety thing and just as surely as I have to get an inspection sticker because I'm irresponsible and you have to get it because I'm irresponsible we have a collective responsibility to do something. The secondary enforcement that James was talking about is really critical because not everybody's going to get this problem. When a dog's running free you can find out where it is you can do something about it. But this is something that mandatory shouldn't scare you because those dogs and cats out there, they should. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Christian Blajana and I am in support of this. The only issue that I would have with is the exceptions. When we talk about dog breeders, I hope that this is considered

[1:11:39] of our step toward a very positive attitude, we start with the end, unfortunately, because of the number that is ridiculous of animals that are killed in this city annually. And it costs us as taxpayers, but it's beyond that it's about supporting life. And I hope that the exception with the dog breeders, the city is going to be taking a responsible step toward regulating that and actually keeping them accountable because any individual can come here and say, I'm a dog breeder and I hope that there will be a responsibility attached to that when they declare themselves dog breeders, because behind that they can hide and do the same irresponsible, they can have the same irresponsible attitude that brought San Angelo to this stage where it is today. So I totally support this. It's not perfect. I'm not scared of mandatory although my dog is intact. But I do understand the point. And it's true. It's going to come to us as responsible citizens. But I hope that this will definitely be addressed with the irresponsible people. Thank you ma'am. Thank you. I knew you were gonna do. My name is Phil Lockett. I've been in this business for quite some time with animals in this city and I want to address a couple of items that was brought up by the council members. First I'd like to say I appreciate the change in the shelter that we've seen over the past three and a half months, it's all for the better, and it's getting better continuously. And I would like for the citizens to support that better than what they're doing.

[1:13:45] The purpose of city license was when the state made it mandatory for parlow shots, when parlow became so prevalent. The city's instituted a license to ensure that all animals receive their parlor shots. That was the main reason for licensing by the cities. And most of them now are getting away from licensing with tags, making the dogs wear tags. They are putting in chips to solve that problem. And it can be managed through the chipping procedure. So that's what I would suggest on that, get rid of their lysing, tags, and so forth, in that way. Mandatory means you have no options. And in this proposal that's before you now, there will be options. There can be an intact requirement or allowable intact procedure that can be permitted in many ways for fee or some other way, you know, for small fee, large fee, whatever is decided to do it, but there will be other options. It's not, we say, mandatory, but there are exceptions to that. But we do have, as a city, we do have too many citizens that are not responsible, and that's our problem with animals. Now at one point, one time I heard a pretty good CEO of a big business state. The first thing he would look for in relocating his business would be how city treated its

[1:15:45] animals. Believe that or not. And if more of them would do that, they'd be better satisfied where they locate their business. And I think that's a good policy. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Further public comment? I apologize. I already told you I'm almost 65. I had a senior moment and I just completely forgot to allow public comment. I apologize. That was my fault and my fault alone. Can we announce that August 8th, Saturday, 10 to 3 at the museum? a with pause in conjunction with pause is that correct? Yes ma'am just another adoption event that we're trying to do we're trying to do them every two weeks if not more so but this weekend yes at the Fine Arts Museum we'll be there from 10 to 3 with about 30 companion animals. See if I can come help. All right and if there is no more public comment it is 10 22 and I'm calling it 15 many break. All right, it is 1043. I will call the meeting back to order. We are ready for item number C, which is a budget, and we have gone through the the different items on the agenda. There's one item that seems to stick out, where we do have some citizens here, and we'd go have some police here. Council, if you would approve this, I would like to go ahead and pull a number I, which is discussion and recommendation of the Police Safety City. I would like to pull this next so that our citizens can be heard and then we'll move on with the housekeeping items ready. Do I have any problem with that? Down here? Down here? No. Then let's go ahead and pull item number. I next. This is the discussion and recommendation regarding the rehabilitation of the Police Safety City. Facilities are the creation of a new facility. Is Chief Voskis here? Okay.

[1:17:45] Slip one in on you, Chief. Figured you you need to get back to work. I appreciate it. What we're going to do today is basically we wanted to educate the council on our current issues at Safety City and also what our future looks like, what we envision for Safety City. This discussion came forward because of the petition that was being circulated in Social media in regards to naming Safety City after Sergeant Corby Kennedy. We do want to do that, but we don't feel that the current facility would be the place to do that. And so there has been a committee that has been together for quite some time, that has discussed, prepared, and put into motion some ideas in order to move forward and to acquire a new Safety City and building a new safety city. And so at this time, I'm going to turn it over to them and allow them to do their PowerPoint presentation and kind of bring you up to par what's been happening. Thank you, Jake. Good morning, Council. My name is Al Torres. I'm on the committee for Safety City for the Safety City of St. Angelo. And I have with me today our president, Georgia Hart, some members of our board, Troy Middleton and Cheryl Fluger, and also our vice president, Ross Coleman is here. So if you ask questions that I can answer, one of them should be able to answer. Our, we are again, Safety City of San Angelo. We, that is our actual name. We have recently gotten our nonprofit status. So that is the name that we've chosen. We are comprised of Safe Kids of San Angelo Coalition and community members. We do want to stress that, you know,

[1:19:45] we have a lot of partners in the community. Some of our primary partners are Community Medical Center, Safe Kids Coalition, City of San Angelo Police Department, City of San Angelo Fire Department, and the San Angelo Independence School District. On top of that, we have a group called Friends of Safety City, and we've involved a lot of other departments, Ethicon, Goodfellow, other City of San Angelo departments, some private companies, Ethicon, various community professionals. So we have a wide variety of people in the community that have been involved in this since 2012 is about when we started and as I said the board does include representatives from fire and police the existing safety city is run pretty much by those two groups so they're the ones that kind of got this started when we first began. Our mission officially is to inspire safety education for all families and children and Our goal is to build a new state-of-the-art facility that addresses the need for safety education for youth of all ages, and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a second. Our existing safety city, we really have nothing to do with the existing safety city. I just want to touch a little bit of what's there and why we felt the need to create a new one. The existing safety city has, some of y'all may even have gone through the programs when you were kids. I know I did when I was a kid. They offer bicycle safety, pedestrian safety, fire safety, and they had approximately six hundred students served last year, and I think about every year in mostly SAISD kids. The program is run through, I don't know if they're volunteer or how it works. We have, I don't know, Officer Bill's, Ms. here, and probably Chief Vasquez could speak to it as well. Fire, Marshall, inspectors help do some training out there, some teaching, as well as some of the police officers. The current safety cities in SAD shape, it needs a lot of work.

[1:21:45] It's been there many, many years, it doesn't get a lot of maintenance, they have problems with the roof and that little building that they have, carpet, the doors need to condition and the asphalt needs repairs, there's no place for actual big meetings, there are no toilet facilities there, they have porta-potties, the signs are in bad shape, overall it needs a lot of work. just some shots of the existing safety city and this is on a these were taken three years ago it was I had just gone through and been painted so these are actually look better than what it is today but it's it's essentially a bunch of little it's a parking lot with a bunch of little storage buildings that have been there forever they try to teach the kids traffic safety there's a little fake train with a rover crossing so it's a great idea you know they're teaching the kids, how to do all this. Our new safety city, when we got together, these are some of the services that we were talking about doing. Again, fire safety, bicycle safety, pedestrian safety, just like the others. But we want to add a lot of other things like school bus safety, safety on electrical lines, gas meters, railroads, internet safety, child predator safety, car seat safety, water safety, bicycle helmet safety, severe weather, bully safety. There's a whole variety of programs that I think the community could use and that we want to address and not just for third graders like we do now, we're looking at a whole gamut of ages, we're even talking about doing some adult and senior needs. One of the things we've talked about recently is having, start having community meetings where we ask the community what kinds of things do you want us to put together, what do you want to see from us and tailor our programmer on that. We've looked at several existing safety cities, in particular, one in Abilene and one in Frisco. The one in Frisco, we were very impressed by and it's kind of what we want to model ours. They've learned some lessons over there, so we want to take some of those lessons and use them here, but a lot of their lessons were success stories, so we want to model a

[1:23:49] lot of what we're doing after them. They have several large meeting rooms where they, of course, they can gather and meet with the kids all at once. They also use the meeting rooms after hours as income generators for people to meet and have various functions there. They have rooms such as this one. This is made up to look like a kid's bedroom. And they have the kids in there, and they're talking about safety with the kids. And while they're in their meeting, smoke will start coming in from under the door and from the vents. So it simulates a fire going on while they're in the bedroom. They teach the kids how to go over to the windows that are there in the room and how to get on their knees and reach up and with their palms, use that to open the windows and how to climb out. And the kids all climb out the windows onto a roof in the next room. So it's a good training tool and teaches them how real life scenarios. The city portion itself, again, it's another fantastic how they've done it. They get corporate sponsors to kind of sponsor these little buildings, and they do like five year contracts with them, and they have to maintain the buildings. The buildings are all have to be of a certain standard, and each one of these buildings is usable on the inside. So again, when the kids aren't using it for the, as the safety city itself, say the bridge club can use it on every Tuesday night, you know, to meet and play or whatever, different organizations. They use them as fundraisers at Halloween. they do trick or treating out of each of these buildings. At Christmas they have it all decorated and set up for functions at Christmas. So there's a lot of multi-purpose to the buildings in the facility as well as teaching two for the kids. They also have little electric vehicles that the kids drive around. So a third of the kids are driving around in these little vehicles, electric cars, a third of them are bicycles, and a third of them are pedestrians. So they're teaching them all three facets of watching out for each other. And then at some point they switch and they rotate. So everybody gets to do a little bit of everything. Again,

[1:25:53] the buildings are all solid construction. The sponsors are responsible for maintaining those. This is a smokehouse where they set fires inside the smokehouse and you can see a big thermometer in the wall so you can see how the temperature changes from the bottom to the middle to the top of the room as the fire progresses. The residential, the home builders get into the active, not just companies, they do little fake houses. So our safety city, what we are right now, again, we have just recently achieved our non-profit status. We obtained our 501c3. We have not started fundraising. We have had a lot of people ask us to give us money, but until we got our 501c3, we really couldn't weren't at that point yet, but we're about to start that next phase. We have not chosen a design professional for the facility itself. That's another thing we'll be looking at next. And we do want to emphasize, Corby was a, he's been with us since we started this, since the idea was first brought forward. He's been on our committee, he's been on our friends of Safety City, and he was very active with us and our board of directors. So we definitely, I mean, we all know, without a doubt, we will be honoring his name in this process, where we eventually end up, we don't know, we can't change the name of our non-profit status, because that's a big, big deal with the state. But rest assured, we will be honoring his name at some point with this facility. So in a nutshell, that's kind of where we are, what we've done, we are an existing group that we meet actively, and we're ready to move forward, but we just kind of will let y'all know where we're at. I don't know if y'all have anything to add. No? Do you have any questions for us? What do you see the total ticket price on the new facility to be?

[1:27:53] We have, of course we're a long way from that, but we, just the buildings themselves, we put I think a $1.3 million price tag in about 2013. 2013 I didn't estimate on that That doesn't include the city portion itself because a lot of that will be funded by the individual sponsors And it kind of depends on how we structure everything A lot of site work that's not included in that and then of course furnishings and technology are not part of that so I know Frisco did theirs I think their price tag was five million dollars total for everything they did. I don't know the wars would be At that level, you know, we would like for it to be but it just kind of depends on how everything comes together. I was glad to hear that we're thinking about doing something other than refurbishing the existing safety city. I think you know that is kind of more about traffic safety which is which is good but I like what you're doing to bring more aspects into it and to make it more relevant and you know from a learning perspective in all facets of our live so you know I think we've we were lucky to have what we have but this is much more interesting and will be much more useful in the future. Thank you and we recognize that the existing facility probably needs some maintenance to keep it going until all of this can come together because it'll it'll take us a while but yeah we have a lot in mind for the new facility we I mean all kinds of programs, education about safety, but at the same time, even the facility itself, we'd like to proceed with, say, green construction, for instance, and have visible examples of how we accomplish that in conserving water. And we've already shown an old water tank where the water can be gathered and used to irrigate what little landscaping we have or zero-scaping we have and use that as a tool so the kids can see how that's being done and how it's being used. So, you know, all kinds of education, not just safety.

[1:29:55] Charlotte? Isn't it fun to play with miniatures and build children of our future? They are absolutely our future and they're going to be what we teach them. And, you know, after visiting the miniature city out of the air force space and seeing how it's set up and what they do for safety in times of emergencies, it's wonderful to see. You know, I'd be willing to bet, and y'all probably already thought of this, that if you went to a few people like the Walmart and the CVS and Reese Albert, the mini streets, that you probably would get some wonderful contributions to build this new little miniature city and the advertising and the contract, you know, to have their name and the output in the miniature little buildings that can be used, may have to have two or three buildings to swap off bridge as they win and move up the deal, but I think it's wonderful. I think it's excellent. I think we should see, but the funding is going to have to come largely from, I think, corporate sponsorship and contributions. Yes, and we recognize that and we've talked about you know And of course we were just now put together a business plan, and we're about to undergo some more strategic planning But that business plan that Ross put together it has a process for naming rights and and of course we're looking at naming the streets naming the buildings naming everything else, you know, so you know, even if Harley-Davidson are one of the company's motorcycles that could be named the Corby Kennedy building it it's just wonderful and I think you would be able to get the contributions said he was about working with children and teaching of safety. Can I say one more thing? I think we need to be careful though in mentioning Corby I mean I think we all want to do something that's

[1:31:56] appropriate but we're a long way from that yes and I think in the end Corby would want to see this facility completed and so I would I think we just need to see where the opportunities are whether it's for corporate sponsors but everyone I think on the committee is very committed to having his presence there but how that how that is manifested I think we're a little on the kind of on the early side of that. We agree a hundred percent and that's exactly what we were what I was trying to say while ago is that Oakley's will be there. He will definitely be honored but at this point we you know we yeah the sunglass store is the the one we'll all be looking towards. There you go. The design professional not chosen, you know, I just would ask that it stay in keeping with all of the things that we're doing, you know, like down on the river of the design, and I think it can be done with the professionals that we've been using throughout the city. Yes, we have some good design professionals here in town. Do I have comments from the left, Wayne? John? I just had a house. So there is no, there's no location yet. You just know we have we have several possibilities that we're looking at but but that's not something that's been determined for sure Can you go back to the our current safety city picture now of course the current one of courses right there MLK Yes, what is it seven-street or mayor cuz I had an all moment because I was you know We're looking for a place for our new police station, and I'm thinking Tim Vasquez Well this were that's that one is not even been suggested to us that's why that's why we spend all that money on a building refurbish yeah refurbish that me fix that door we may need to make a taller door but not the second story maybe in a parking garage could we make sure

[1:34:01] the alleys are wide enough. Yes, yes. And paved. And paved. Anybody else? You're planning on raising the money. You just want us to. Yeah, I'm asking what are you asking for? Well, we're not really asking for anything at this point. We've met with our city manager, you know, just kind of keeping brief on what we've been doing and what we're going to do. And we want, of course, work with the city long range, you know, maybe partner in keeping the building going once it's built, et cetera. It's fire department. Fire department, police department involvement and that kind of stuff. So at this point, we're not asking for anything. There was, like Chief Vazquez said, there's been a lot of talk in the social media and I think there's a petition going around. We just wanted to address that this is something that we were already looking at, a process has already been started. So we just want to continue as we've been doing. I think the consensus up here is, yeah, yeah, good. Look at the future and the children you would mold little mini cars, little police cars, ambulances, firecracks in shape. I just think it would help us mold our children. I agree, okay. Public comment on this item before we move on. Thank you. Any of the board members want to speak? You want to share a little wisdom with us? out wisdom. But as with any building project, of course, the longer that it goes, the more expensive it gets. We started looking at it. It was around a million. We now are estimating with all of the gadgets and the bells and whistles that we would be looking at more like three and a half to five. But, of course, those can be done in phases and not all at once. So we want it to be a community project. We want the community involved in it.

[1:36:01] Not just put together something, and there we've solved a problem, and the problem keeps getting bigger and bigger with our children. So. Let me ask you a question, Mayor. How much of that three in heaven do you think maybe there's sponsorships out there for? Did Joe think about that? Half of that. facility can maintain itself as we get it built. That's the right answer. I think it's a good idea. Thank you. Thank you very much. That cover that now. Brian do you have something to say sir? Most of you already know me. I'm Brian Bilzma with the San Diego Police Department. I am the current instructor for the Police Department at the current safety city. Al and the board. This project is a vision for Corby. That was his vision that started. We had meetings last year. He started kickstarting it. I want to let the board know that I don't even know who owns this property. I'm assuming the city does. I do have some things going on right now with this old safety city to help try to keep it going until this project is finished. I've got two boys that are Boy Scouts that are getting ready to do Eagle projects out there. They're going to replace 10 buildings with three larger ones. So if you go by there and all of a sudden you see some buildings being torn down, that's why it's to try to help refurbish some of it. But I would like to see as much of a sponsorship and working relationship with City of St. Angelo and the St. Angelo itself on getting this vision that Corby had done and getting it completed on whatever means that has to be done.

[1:38:01] His vision was to put as little into this old one as we could to keep it going until someone asked, we figured out it's been there at least 41 years, we had a lady that brought her grandchild there last year. So it's been there for at least 41 years. I also want to recognize there's a CPA firm and I'd have to get on my phone to remind me what one it was. But there is a CPA firm here in San Angelo that has just donated money to the San Angel coalition of place and we just purchased 21 new bikes. So hopefully, those bikes can still be fairly brand new and can go to the new safety city, San Angelo, if they need those. But I just wanted to let you know what the status is of the old one. Thank you, sir. Need a little miniature city hall. I think the school district actually owns the property. Probably. We're leasing from them or something. Yes, Ross Coleman Fire Marshal. It's my understanding and talking to Cineprius that the lease with the school district expired last year. So I think we need to be working with the school district to see if we can extend that lease until such time that this project is up and running. But to address the issue with Corby, we do agree with Councilman Grindstaff. It's very early and it's inception to decide what we're going to do. But it is our total intention to have the more suitable and proper honorarium for him at this facility when the time comes. Thank you. Al? I did want to add for Councilman Farmer, as I said, we haven't picked a design professionally, but in the conceptual drawings, I do show a main street and at the end of main street a miniature city hall. So we may be asking the city to help get in the little miniature city hall sponsored and built, so.

[1:40:02] Thank you. Yeah. Very good. Keep it going. And just for public record, The foundation has been set up. We are now in the business of taking donations if anyone, so let's get this started. Thank y'all very much. This is a very good project. Public comment. Do I have public comment on this at the time before we move on? Then let's get back on schedule. Thank you. We are now up to number C, which is a discussion regarding fiscal year 215-216, budget preparation, including consideration of a record vote to propose a property tax rate, Morgan and Cieg Witten. And your plan is just to go through a presentation and we will take these one at a time, vote them up and down, is this correct, Morgan? Yes, sir, I believe we can have a presentation ready. It's stuff we've really talked about a lot. I'll move through it quickly for the audience and then we'll get to our sheet where we're trying to balance the budget and then speak to those specific deliverables from the budget workshop. I do have support from Lisa Marley related to health insurance and pay plan proposal and support from Ryan Kramer related to the vehicle maintenance questions. So I know that that's really what's gonna be the bulk of the conversation today. So we'll move through that quickly to get y'all what you need. Then we'll come back to the record vote at the end. And I believe Marty had something he wants to completely change everything we've done. You wanna wait till she gets through, Marty? Yeah, okay. Okay, so there are items that are council priorities that we had identified last meeting that there's no requirements this budget cycle. So those are not before you for consideration today. I thought I'd skip right to the ones that we have spent some time on. The second council priority, of course, is related to streets, the renewed infrastructure. As we've discussed, we're talking about investing in $115,000 to maintain that eight-year cycle, and so that's just related to inflation, and that's in there for consideration.

[1:42:02] Street survey results and all of that will be available in the fall, but I think that that'll queue up for our further discussion. salaries as we mentioned that we have $1.5 million set aside as a placeholder to get the specific parameters about how we're going to allocate that. And again, Lisa will be available shortly to weigh in on that. Again, we've talked about improvement in the development process related to staff development and board and commission training and education. So we addressed that item there. The next item there is related to health insurance. And as we discussed last meeting, what we've plugged in is an amount related to the most conservative plan to increase the employer contribution. Of course, there's an increase proposed for the employee contribution as well. And I believe Lisa has the details on that as we worked through that item. And then the pay as you go capital to try to start replenishing that at an amount of $500,000 this year to hopefully get up to within the three years, what would be necessary to replenish that $1.5 million. And as you all know, that's been used to fund, you know, Avenue P drainage remediation, 19th Street sidewalks. It's been a terrific tool for the council to be able to use to identify and fund some very specific items. And then vehicle maintenance, of course, there were several conversations related to that. So just as a reminder, as we ended the meeting last meeting, we had revenue over expenditures of $3,065,000 that is due in small part two an increased estimate for sales tax due in large part to about 2.5 million dollars worth due to the increased property valuation. No increase in the rate, just the valuation and the tax roll. We did plug in that amount related to streets to to manage that inflation. Again the amount for salaries, development services, health insurance pay as you go capital, vehicle maintenance is not having an amount plugged in for it yet. So we ended last meeting at a revenue over expenditure of $385,146.

[1:44:02] So with that, I'm sorry. We have our Excel spreadsheet where we're kind of plugging in plan and have that information available to kind of run some different scenarios and know what's going on with how that would affect the bottom line. So as discussed last meeting, we started with this column related to what management was recommending, and then we moved on to working through this column of what we had by consensus by the council and I and as mayor, as you mentioned, we can move through these items one by one, go down the row, however you feel like moving through that we're available to support on those discussions. More before we do that, I wasn't present at the retreat or whatever we want to call it. But y'all were so kind to bring me up to speed yesterday and so from doing that I started asking some questions and you know one of the reasons that I ran for council was to make a solid effort to redo streets and why I think the 115 for inflation helps us maintain maintenance. It doesn't do anything as far as starting the process to redo the streets that we've lost, which are a lot of them. So when staff was bringing me through it yesterday, I asked them what would happen if we put the page you go capital up with streets and also take the vehicle maintenance and put it up up in streets and do bond service bonds with that, that gives us about two cents roughly leaving the inflation in there, which would allow us to start redoing some streets.

[1:46:14] And Tina, or maybe more, we want to y'all can kind of help me through this because, but with that, if we use that several months ago, I don't remember how many months ago, y'all showed us a plan where we could take debt service. We have like three cents coming off or something, so that would give us five and we could basically start doing some major remodel and some major resurfacing or could you help me get to the idea? Would you cover that $80 million kind of the terms of that $80 million? Yes. What we had considered was $80 million issued over a 10-year period and to issue $16 million every other year. So with that, I did speak with our debt advisors yesterday and today. That proposal would cost about $0.06 of the property tax rate. It's $0.08 minus this too. So $0.80 million costs $0.08 on the tax rate. What Mr. Self just proposed was dedicating a piece of this money to buy that cost down from $0.08 to $0.02. So we could basically do that, if we could find two more cents, we could do that without any tax, increased tax burden on the tax burden. I'm sorry, I just said, a sense to two cents, a sense to six cents. So that's the six cents you're talking about. Right. And then after next year, we begin to see some capacity of about two and a half cents, which grows to about five cents by the year 2023. So we could definitely, you know, use that two and a half cents. That does leave you with no pay as you go capital or capacity for any other debt issues. So within a year, this two cents would be supplemented with another three cents. Right.

[1:48:14] And so you'd have five of the eight cents necessary to issue that street's debt. That's correct. Your caveat though is that it doesn't leave any other capacity for other issues. So if we did have any other big projects come up we would have to address those we'd have to find the money to right service that Okay, so if we're talking like the police station if we're talking a future project like that And we used all of our capacity on streets What would that leave us for projects like the police station? We'd have to go up on the tax rate or cut expenses somewhere else the the capacity in the Property tax rate is there but we would be talking about either an increased property tax rate or cutting expenses somewhere else in order to fund that. But if we don't start making an effort to put something in there to reduce streets all we're doing is maintaining the streets that we haven't lost and we're not getting anywhere. So So bold statement, bold move, but I think it's going to take something like that to get streets repaired. And if we start with that 4 cents, you know, we don't necessarily have to issue the 80 million all at once, we at least get to start it halfway there. I was just going to add that a lot of the citizens out there don't understand the 8 cents minus two cents. Don't understand six cents or four cents or next. What they want to know is when are we going to break ground and start the whole process? That's what they want to know. Not two cents here and eight cents there and six. You know, when is it this year? Is it the end of this year? Is it early next year? That's the question I get asked all the time. When? Right. And some of that's dependent, of course, on the street survey, which I'm sure Shane is here. If you have any questions on that, I believe it's due in September, but later

[1:50:14] this year. Yeah. So, yeah. Well, I know that maintenance as far as the maintenance portion of it, that starts, I mean, that's something we started right away. But the reconstruction portion of it, Shane, and I know you're walking up at this point, I mean, we're looking at even best case scenario that we're looking at least maybe about two months, three months still left in the fiscal year before we could even start with the entire reconstruction of where the case is at correction. Yeah, we, actually the RFQ that we're looking at for design firms to help us with the designs and get on board, it's actually due at the end of this week. So we're hoping at the next council meeting we come back with a recommendation for that. So we can actually start the design work on a lot of these streets that we know are gonna need to be either resurfaced or completely reconstructed and really start barreling down on timelines on that. You know, a lot of these things where we can get away with milling overlays, those are things that Councilman Silva's that we can actually turn around and hopefully this time next summer we're hard and heavy after it and so we're actually milling we're putting down we're resurfacing reconditioning the streets the larger projects Bell Street even though we can get the design work done we can get started there's a lot of underground utilities work that has to be done before we can actually rebuild the street itself but and those are longer-term processes that that will be coming to you with very specific set of plans and timelines as we move into the future but there's a lot of these other ones were a simple milling overlay will really do us a lot of good and that's the process like we did on 14th Street and Main Street two years ago those processes we can really get started I think by this time next summer we can be hot and heavy into the middle of those so Shane the survey results that's coming to us when we're hoping to have preliminary results back to city staff by the end of this month and hopefully have something finalized to y'all in in September. The Mr. Silva's the other part of the

[1:52:14] timeline the other part of the timeline answer is the financial side and that is when Shane's ready to pull the trigger on some of those milling overlay or whatever projects come come up to the top we'll we'll need to have a financial plan in place to facilitate that work and and that's where a discussion at this time could be beneficial next year. As we build capacity into next year's budget to either pay with cash or pay debt service, that will allow us to issue debt to pay for those projects. And so we are nearing the point where the finance side and the operational side need to be walking step-per-step with one another. You know Marty, I don't have a problem with what you're saying here. And I was going to ask that we put more in the pay-as-you-go capital. I'd like to have a savings account. We have no idea what's going to happen in this next budget cycle with the oil revenue down. We don't know what's going to happen. Our sales tax could take a trip south and I would really like to be in a position where we've got money in the bank to protect us and pay things really do go south. So I don't have a problem with building up the pay-as-you-go capital and building it up as much as as high as we can. just leave it open-ended. If we decide then next year we want to on our street project, if we see that we need that money to work on our streets, it's there. I don't have a problem one with building up that pay as you go capital. I'd like it to maybe six or seven hundred thousand a year to give us a little more money to to protect ourselves with. But we could build that capital up and then we could use it as necessary for the things that that will come along and things that possibly may come along. I don't know. I fall in line with what you're saying. Well, I mean, I say we commit them to debt laws for streets. I'm not ready to go that

[1:54:15] far, but I am willing to build an account up that we could use for streets if this council decided that was the best thing to do with the money. I really would like to have a savings account and mister mayor after our discussion at the budget workshop I did make some talking notes about you know our rainy day fund our fund balance where we are right now that we're budgeted to in fiscal year 15 our current year that we're in right now at 10.5 million dollars and that is about 55 days of operating fun goal would be 75 days it certainly had an influx because of the positive economic experience lately that we that management Council has done a terrific job of really holding the line on expenses and letting any revenue in excess of budget fall to that fund balance and address that that need as it as it should and so I'm sorry I have some notes here so as a fiscal year 14 we had ended the year at 7.9 million dollars or we had budgeted the year at 7.9 million dollars fund balance because fiscal year 14 had positive economic experience, meaning we had $2.3 million in revenue over budget. And so that was largely in the sales tax, also in other items related to municipal court fines and fees, not the restricted items, but the additional. So that's what brought our budgeted fund balance up to the $10.5 million. So we're really impacting that in a meaningful way by holding the line on expenses that we've tried in the past to set aside money in the budget $180,000 a couple years ago. And that would add, you know, a cup one day, that would add one day to our operating budget. But if we have another year similar, if fiscal year 16 is similar to fiscal year 15, we could get as close as 63 days. So we are, so we haven't done a good job of communicating that necessarily. But we're growing that fund balance, that rainy day fund, to a healthy level, and it's in a lot better shape than it has been, of course, when we had, you know, economic downturn. So we are moving in that direction. Charlotte, I'd like to hear the city manager's idea of Mr.

[1:56:20] self's proposal. You know, I think from the very get-go in discussing what we need to do with streets. We knew that we had to contribute the monies to it and city council had that as a priority of course when we looked at the top five priorities. I know that at this point that we look at maintenance the monies are set aside for the maintenance portion of it and that's something that we'll be doing on a year by year basis. What Mr. Self is trying to do, of course, at this point is what we want to do as well is make sure that we address the long term as far as the reconstruction part of it. I know that what we try to do sometimes is by just a little bit of time, knowing that we do know that the revenues have gone up. We've been very responsible with our expenditures to make sure that we maintain until the line is as Morgan just mentioned. So we know that we do have some of those monies that are left over at the end of the year. Even the rainy day fun, when we start looking to maybe perhaps attacking the long-term reconstruction. Sometimes I think there's a want to maybe address it through the general fund. I'm opposed to doing something like that. I wanna make sure that we do it within what we can within the budget as far as expenditures. And even what we have those two cents, four cents, the sixth cents from our budget. We know that by policy we try to keep it at eight to 10 cents as far as our debt service. We're at eight cents right now. We can go as high as 10 cents. It's up to the city council and we start looking at how much of that of those dollars or those monies will be used for the long term, the reconstruction. And that's basically what Morgan is talking about and what Marty just mentioned a little while ago. We don't have to bite off everything all at once. We could do it in little pieces right now to address the first phase of the reconstruction coming up since this coming year. And we can address in those steps. I know that you just mentioned a little while ago. It doesn't have to happen all at once. We don't need all the $80 million right now, just small portions. And we need to figure out how much of a hit

[1:58:21] will take on those cents as well. But I'm supportive in moving forward with something like that as well, especially. Daniel made a good point there about moving ahead and determining how much it will take. The $80 million is a number that came from finance just determine what kind of burden 80 million dollars would create. The final number on what it takes to actually do streets we won't know until we get the survey back and we actually get bids back each of those times we get ready to do a project. I think it's safe to say we're going to need at least 80 wouldn't you say Shane. So I think Daniel makes a good point that we're going to need to tailor this as we move forward we need to try to hit the big capacity so we can do the the things that Council has said as goals, but I think Daniel makes a good point that we'll need to tailor it in future years to try to get done what those future councils see as goals in those years. We have a major challenge. I know that in the past, and of course, we can't believe anyone. I know in the past there was some challenges with economic downturns, that even when I showed up here, I mean, what we had allocated for streets was $680,000, that's a drop in the bucket. We're trying to build up to that. I think that at this point, We've done a really good job, especially when we talk about maintenance and performing the $1 that have been set aside for that, but we also know that we want to tackle a lot more than that. We know that in order for us to really make an impact, we've got to hit the reconstruction as well. We're finally getting to a point where we can address that being as responsible as you can. We may be able to pull it off this coming year, and as we plan properly for the next eight to ten years, have a really solid plan in place in order to address reconstruction as well. I hate using the term that can kick down the road, but I think that for the longest time, we did what we could do. And now we have a lot of issues as far as a lot of streets that not have to be reconstructed. We don't want the ones that are currently just require maintenance to go any further without

[2:00:21] maintenance, because before we know it, here we go again. Now we have to reconstruct those streets that anywhere between four to six times is the cost of maintenance. So again, I think we're definitely heading the right direction. We do need to address reconstruction, but not all at once. We'll address it in little phases at this point. Mayor? Yes, ma'am. I like what Marty is saying. But I think that my issue with just talking about streets is there are other infrastructure needs that we have, whether it's the police station. Do we say water, customer service? What do we call that, that building? Okay, that are essentially in the same position. We have never addressed them properly, we have not maintained them properly, and now we're looking at kind of big ticket items. So I'm with Marty making a bold move, and not just simply kind of a band-aid fix. We really need to do this the right way, and I think what you're proposing on streets is good, but I think there's, I can think of two other issues that I would speak to the same way. And so in order for me to support that for streets, I wanna know what your idea is for the other two properties. I don't want you to say, well, we're gonna, I mean, I want you to be a little bit more than vague because I think otherwise we're not going to address them. And I think we've made a commitment to the police station that we are going to do something and we recognize how we've not maintained that building properly and how antiquated it is for policing today, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't want it to be one or the other. I think we need to address them again with the same thoughtful fashion. Rodney? I agree with Marty on this thing.

[2:02:21] Making the bold move is, in my opinion, the thing that we should be up here to do and if you're gonna have it's gonna be four cents that'll be off that would be available to us next year right I think I think this too that he's proposed plus almost three more so almost five okay so well over half of though of our total capacity five of the eight that was the original and in the eight everything would be off on the eight in how many years up to 2023, did you say in 2023, and that last for several years, probably 10 or 15 years. Well, what I would be more apt at, excuse me, but what I'd be more apt at proposing on this is instead of going everything and kind of like Liz said, commit four of it to the streets and just so that we're showing our citizens that we are doing something, we are taking this very, very seriously, and we're putting the money there. I mean, we're making that money go there. If we do have a crisis within the next several years and that could happen where we, but if we have that crisis, we're going to be changing everything. We're going to be so we can move things around at that point. But what I think and I think what I haven't talked to him about this, but I think what I hear from my constituents and he's probably also hearing is, they want us to work on this problem and get this problem done. For us, saving that money and stuff, we need to be doing something to some street somewhere. And so I think that my proposal or what I would like to do is maybe commit four of it to this and then we would talk about it in the future on maybe doing, you know, I don't the number because I don't we're going to see the the police station and the the waterworks building and things like that but I I like his proposal about making

[2:04:21] this let's not pass this on because that when I came into this office that's what I was so mad about also because in years past this can has been kicked down the road so so far and everybody's always afraid of raising taxes or getting the money to do the things that have to be done well I'm with him I'm with Marty on this, we need to do something. And I really like his proposal. I think it's a great move and I'm totally in support of it. I just think that maybe instead of we talk about, yeah, we just change the numbers just a little bit, maybe not dedicated at all, but we force some of that money that it has to be there and get the stuff done. And I've edited this a little bit to kind of show the value of two cents is about $880,000 in change. So for example, if we, to show what it would look like, we could put all of that in pay as you go capital and then have continued discussion with the council for today's discussion we don't need to say right now today where it's going but if we do want to earmark that for capital that's one opportunity. And I can agree with that but I would say let's put the maximum that we can afford let's put the maximum amount of dollars that we have let's put it in the pay as you go capital and let's build this up to the to the maximum level it's a lot easier to make decision when you've got a little money to fall back on than when you have nothing at all so So let's put the maximum in this and then we'll get into our next budget cycle and we'll get our survey back and we know how many dollars we need, then we've got money to work with. And Mr. Mayor, that's what this does, it exactly balances the budget. I do think we have some lingering questions related to salaries, health insurance, and vehicle maintenance. So as we've moved through those two items, streets, and pay-as-you-go capital, there's that capacity there, perhaps we could... Mayor, I have a question. Yes, sir, John. Morgan, how much does one, one cent generate? How much? One cent is equals about $440,000. And so that could serve as debt, or that could be cash.

[2:06:24] $440,000 is one cent on the property tax. And I'm with Rodney, because I think somewhere along the line, I need the citizens of this community need to have some skin in the game. And I'll be the first to complain about streets. But we've got to realize that, hey, we are driving and tearing up these streets ourselves. Sure, there's other folks who come visit and all. But we've got to have a little bit more pride in our city and the way it looks. And that means a scent and an increase for a taxes to maintain our streets and so be it. But we've got to have some kind of skin in the game to keep it going and keep the improvement. I hear what you're saying. I agree with it. But I also, I guess, have been here to have heard the people. You know, you had all that property tax money, you rolled it back. It's how we spend it. And I didn't hear Marty propose raising the property tax base, just readjusting how we spend it. I just want to be careful to make sure this time around that those monies that we commit are spent on our streets, committed to the streets. And that's what I said also, I mean, and I think that's what Marty, no, I think it should be used for streets. Well change that to pay as you go, street capital fund. And we could steal as a council, we could still look at if we had expenditures that were unexpected, we could still pull money. I don't know, just to suggest you. I don't want to raise taxes. I do not want to raise taxes at this time. And also, there's other things that we can do for streets. And we've talked about that before, maybe a fee of some type. But before we start raising a bunch of money, I'd want to go to the voters with a bond issue,

[2:08:27] let the people decide if they want to pay more taxes for it. You know, one of the things that has been a comfort to us we try to work through these issues is that you have identified priorities. It's a great comfort to us to know that there are five priorities and that we can focus on trying to address those priorities. What you've got here, I hear the water customer service building is really something we would anticipate funding from water revenues and that will be a discussion item when water revenues are considered when that study is ready. The police facility and the streets are competing for those general fund dollars. As long as the council continues to place PD facility or streets or whatever in those top priorities staff will be continuing to pursue those goals. And so, the idea that we dedicate a certain amount of money toward those priorities, with the details to follow up, some kind of either, I think we could work with either all of the money dedicated for capital, or a rough allocation, this many pennies for this and this many for this, or a specific allocation. I think we can work with any of those issues. The key is for us, it's such a benefit to have those goals to shoot for. staff is definitely not proposing a tax increase, that's for sure. We want to work with what we have at this point. Could I ask the hypothetical question, God forbid, if we had a tornado or earth tremor, and our police department was demolished, what we do and where would we get the money to do it with, to replace, to rebuild? And I'm asking you, Michael, I'm sorry. we would bring options to counsel for obviously the greatest concern at that point would be a temporary facility that would allow them to operate appropriately. And so we would be

[2:10:31] scrambling to find a facility, temporary use of a facility especially for a public safety operation probably would not create a tremendous financial burden, but it would be a financial burden because we're not paying anything for rent now. Realistically, if we went from zero to a hundred trying to get a new facility built or remodeled or equipped for police operations, that could be very difficult. We could issue debt if necessary in a relatively short period being it's very important it is very important that we keep that at the top of the list because it could happen and I don't want and it's failing now it's failing now so I can't keep kicking the can down the road and that's why it came to us before right we realized we needed to do something and and so I mean I I I think streets are the same way I I'm not putting one before the other I really really don't want to, but they've both been treated the same way. So when are we going to do something sincere and costly? So I think that idea is a good one, but we're in, we have two, two issues there, not just where I were. And we know that the city council did prioritize, of course the police department was a priority from the, from the get go. We know that money's having been allocated, of course, to secure the building, perhaps where that police department would go in there so that initial first step has been taken. But again, as you mentioned, this client staff, there's competing projects and it all goes back to that priority. We had limited resources and we had to decide which ones we're gonna go after at this point. I know that streets was above the police department as far as the priority level. So again, tackling that for us is really important

[2:12:31] and I think that doing it in small chunks, we can come up with a plan that will work to be able to finance it. Well, you know, when I was running for counsel, that was the main question. What about our streets? What about our streets? And everybody was real concerned about it, and everybody was talking about it. And now that we're here, we're like, well, let's do it later, or let's do this, or let's do that. We need to really do something about it, because it's going to be another election, and the people are going to be asking the same question, what about our streets? So I'm proposing that we actually really do something. Let me bring another problem up before we get any further it's almost 1140 you're leaving in 1145 Elizabeth yes sir Jonny you're leaving at 12 okay Rodney you have to be somewhere I'm returning though I do plan to return okay I know we've got the the charter Brian had to leave it may require if we don't get the charter before we all have to go this is going to require a special meeting because this has to be done before the next meeting. I'll be back in an hour. Okay but you're going to be going to two right me too. Okay we're pushing time real because we're not anywhere near through with this. So what do we want to do? We just want to just keep working and go as we go or. I think we're down. I think we're real close to this. You think we are? I will say that if we we're looking for clear direction today to also avoid a special meeting that the next council meeting, the budget ordinance, will be proposed. So we're on that timeline as well, a similar timeline. Can I ask a quick question? Yes ma'am. Shane, do you want 340,000 in vehicle maintenance, or do you want it in streets? That's the question. Real quick, real quick, yes, real quick. I need it in vehicle maintenance right now. In the street, and that's what I'm going to say, from the street reconstruction standpoint, not the maintenance standpoint, because y'all are giving me the maintenance budget I need to do what I need right now. from the reconstruction standpoint, when we're talking about debt capacity, I can only reconstruct

[2:14:35] or rebuild so much street in a year. We just, we don't have enough, there's not enough contractors out there to come into San Angelo and try to rebuild 80 million dollars worth of streets all at once. So when we're looking at issuing debt, we will need, I think we can look at smaller chunks, more reasonable chunks over a period of time for debt issuance instead of trying to issue $30 million or $40 million or $80 million all at once for street reconstruction because we simply just can't tackle that big a project all at one time so and maybe that'll help maybe that helps y'all when you're thinking about this in in terms of how much do we need right now how much do I need in five years I think hopefully that will help help that from from that standpoint from the issuance of debt. The plan we saw from staff was $16 million every other year, right? That's correct. For the $80 million. And I don't think $16 million every other year is going to go real far. Big projects like Bell Street, you're correct. It won't. $8 million is kind of a projected right now at Bell Street. So I mean, that's what we're going to get out of there. But when you start looking, if we can really narrow down milling overlays, say if that's That's what it takes to do Chabron. I had the guys run a quick figure based on what our last costs were for a milling overlay project. We can do all of North Chabron from the loop up to, well, right there at the city limits basically, at 87 for about two and a half million on a milling overlay. So those type projects we can get a lot further, a lot faster on than the total reconstruction. But again, that milling overlay on something that big with that much traffic control, it's not a it's not a one week job it's it's probably a two month job so just from a capacity from what we have from contractors you know I think at 16 million

[2:16:36] to 20 million and there and we may come back one year with needing more money because we do have our everything lined up ready to go all at once and the contractors say they can do it but we can come back to y'all I'm hoping you know real soon with a very mapped out plan of what we think is capable or what we think we're capable of over the next five years seven years for reconstruction purposes well I propose that we we put it into to the I thought she had it a different way while ago. It wouldn't be page you go capital I think under under the current direction it would be streets that service or some kind of future that service. Yes that's why I propose. And let's put as much money in there as we can let's let's maximize that to give us a pot to pull from when when it is time when Shane does have some some specific goals we'd have more money to pull from to do what we need to do. And that would fulfill my savings account plan as well. Let's build a balance. Well, I don't want to call it a savings account personally. We'll call it a pay as you go. Let's just put as much money as possible. Right, because as we've said, and I'm had my catch up yesterday, I mean, we're experiencing the rain and we've been waiting for this for how many years and so we're seeing the sales tax up and we're having a good experience right now so we need to spend that on the things that we have pushed down the road. Let's spend them. Let's get them dedicated for certain projects. I don't think any of us want to do anything irresponsible but spending

[2:18:39] nothing gets us nowhere. So I mean I think Shane's right there is just sort the reality of being in West Texas where we can't put a lot out to bid and all of it, you know, get bidders and get it within the budget we want. But I think at least now we're all willing to do something much more significant than past councils have. But we have the opportunity and maybe they didn't. I do want to point out though, as far as when we start projecting as far as revenues, we tend to be conservative in our projections anyway. So we know that at the end of the year any revenues above expenditures will end up and our fund balance regardless you start talking about that rainy day fund is going in there and we're gonna maintain fiscal responsibility to make sure that we always come in under those budget expenditures so again because we do budget conservatively on revenues and we are gonna make sure that we stay below our expenditures any type of anything above the projected revenues goes right straight into our fund balance anyway. Finance directors don't last long when they over promise and under-delivered it. That's right. We need to talk about vehicle maintenance now. Yes, sir. We are looking for greater direction on salaries. I don't know if you want to take these in order. We can certainly jump to you. Don't take them in order. Yeah. I think so. The only one I've got a problem, I don't have a problem with anything but vehicle maintenance, but we can take them one at a time and see how the rest of the council feels. Does anybody have a problem with anything other than vehicle maintenance? I don't have a problem with vehicle maintenance. Okay. have a problem with with the salaries or the development process or the health insurance does anyone have a problem with anything and we talked about the salary is gonna be based on merit yes I think Lisa Marley does have an additional recommendation I want to make sure she gets clear direction on that I don't think anybody's got a problem with any I do have a problem with vehicle maintenance and obviously I think Marty does as well since he wants to put it in the in the debt service but that's really the only one I've got a problem I don't

[2:20:39] I don't have a problem with it. Yeah, I just think it's better. You'd have to use money somewhere else. But I agree with you saying Morgan that Lisa needs direction or something. I believe so. I believe it's, there's what we talked about last time and an additional conversation. So let's take them on time, let's go with salaries. Good morning mayor, council and city manager. Basically, what I wanted to just explain is that when we go with it, with the pay raises being distributed based on their performance evaluations. The lowest score that we would reward in an evaluation, whatever percentage we apply to that, that would be the percentage that we would need to apply to raising the ranges. So just as an example, only an example, this number that is on the budget proposal that represents a five and a half percent increase for the payroll, excluding meet and confer. So if we took and went with, let's see, 6.25 for exceeds and 4.75% for meets, we would only be able to raise those ranges 4.75% because someone who was at the minimum of the range right now would get a 4.75% merit increase. And if we raise the ranges five and a half, those people would fall below the minimum of the range. So what I wanted to make sure, just conceptually, that you are on board with a proposal that we would put together for the distribution of this money. There's many combinations that we can do between exceeds and meets, but the two parts that I really need a direction on is do you support the fact that, or understand the fact, that the minimum percentage that we give for meets

[2:22:41] will also need to be the amount that we raise those ranges. And if our goal is to raise the ranges to attract and retain folks, we wanna keep that as high as we can. The other thing that is an issue for me is fire would be at 5.5% for their pay ranges and PD is at 6.26. So I wanted to hear what you had to say about, Do you want us to try to keep fire as close to the PD numbers as we can and then take the rest of that and equally divide it between meats and exceeds for the general population? Or what is your consensus on that? Don't everybody jump in at once? OK. Let me tell you how I feel about it. Let's see how it works. We've probably got, and I'm talking off the top of my head, we're probably 20, 25 employees in our city that make close to 100,000. If we get the five and a half percent, that's 5,500 a year we're giving to those. When we've got that guy at the bottom that works for 20 and he exceeds his job, he gets a thousand. I would rather have a dollar amount if you exceed, you get x amount of money. If you're below that, you get x amount of money. And instead of giving one fifty five hundred dollars and giving another one that succeeds in his job, one thousand dollars, let's make, let's make a dollar amount so that everyone one is able to to gain some money and it also it it it slows down that that distance between them I don't like to spend take all of our money and give it to you know 20% of our employees and that's I don't know that's that's just kind of my feelings on this and I realize there'll probably be some dissension but I'd rather have a dollar amount tied to exceeds and almost exceeds and doesn't exceed so that we don't get all its disparity because we need our hundred thousand employees but we also meet those that are making 20 and they

[2:24:41] also bread costs the same to both groups. Well I agree with what you're saying that you know we need to bring those lower wages up in our goal to bring them up to the 90-95 percentile. We are by the same token I do not feel like that you can punish or penalize our decreed educated people because they are just disserving, just because their salary is 80,000 and someone else is 30,000 doesn't mean that you bring that 30,000 up to 60, 70,000. It's not equivalent to the contribution of that degree person. So I disagree with that. I do agree with you on based on evaluation and it's not a dollar amount if you put a percentage you know in there what you're saying is to put a larger percentage on your lesser salaries than you would of those above and I don't I don't I don't think that's right Marianne if I may I'm sorry no go ahead if I may as well I know that a lot of what we do of course is in comparison to sister cities and to take a look at what we are as far as some of our directors and quite frankly I think we have some of the best directors I know for a fact that I've ever worked with I think they're wonderful. I know that again we do compare, we do benchmark against those other cities and we know that a lot of our directors and a lot of those positions at this point they're lagging way behind some of those other cities. I'll tell you right now when it comes to recruiting and trying to get good people once we lose a director it becomes really difficult because we are not at that range. We can't even afford to compete with those other cities to try to get the best people we can because those numbers just weigh down. And we've experienced that a few times already where, oh my goodness, he would be one or she would be wonderful but we just can't pay them. They could go to other cities or other sister cities

[2:26:44] because they actually do have the ranges where they should be. So again, that's the struggle that we're faced with as well. I do may understand exactly where you're coming from because we We do care a lot about the first level of employees. We want to make sure that they get their increases. We also don't want to ignore those director level positions either. Again, they do a tremendous job for us. And again, when you start looking at those numbers in comparison, we do have those directors lagging behind as well. Rodney, I think you were next. No, I think he was. Marty? Well, I take it. You probably not only have the best directors, but you have the best council people you've ever worked with, too. Absolutely. No, I'd see what you're saying there, but those percentages, if you lower the, I mean, if you raise them dollar amounts, it's screws of percentages that have done it, so we pretty much have to stay with it. I don't know what to do about police and fire though. I don't think there's much we can do about police and fire is that's meeting confer and police is meeting confer and the firemen have their own civil service, there's really not much we can do about those is well I mean you can tell me what percentage that you want the PD or the fire scales to go up does this include any money for the report to put into the retirement fund for those that and I know that's a different system but are we are we are we thinking anything about our retirees that if you're retired is there any percentage going to them do we even have any say so over what retirees make no okay that answer that question more Rodney? I do agree that it should be a percentage, but the problem I'm having is on the meets or exceeds. That's the problem I'm having. When you say meets, and you're gonna give them what was the bottom of that range for? 4.75. I don't like that at all. Because exceeds is better than four. Well, yeah, my employees, if I have my employees and my employees skating by, and I say skating, I've been, I've been in these jobs before when military gives you evaluations also you do the bare minimum of your job

[2:28:50] Then you should just get paid. I Actually wouldn't I would almost not even give a raise at all a very small raise But if you are a person that exceeds at your job whether it's the $20,000 person or the $100,000 person that person is going out of their way I think they should get more on the on these races So I'm more than six and a half or more are the gap I think the gap should be wider between four percent and six percent. Well and just so you know the reason we do that is because obviously we don't know how the scores are going to come in and and since this number represents five and a half percent we tried to figure out what two numbers would even out to five and a half percent I understand but I'm not in agreement of that I think that it and I don't mind giving you know a meets person some sort of raise but I don't I don't think that it should be a reward for just doing the bare minimum I would like I would love for every one of our employees to be a person that does exceed and and we do give the higher rate what is the percentage on them between the it's a third of our employees for a last year's numbers a third of our employees exceeds two-thirds meets see that's that's not a very acceptable I would probably and you're talking about retaining these people I probably don't want to retain a person that just meets I would prefer to have a person that exceeds and so we don't retain the ones that are below yeah I understand right but I you know I can see it more as a fire under your butt sitting there going you know what I didn't get a raise and my my partner here he got a he or she got a six percent or eight percent raise. Well and often the meets would be the person that would receive at least the cost of living. I mean would you agree something like that? Cost of living I would probably be I'd be more fine with cost of living instead of just tossing out an arbitrary number. I would be when what is cost of living is it two? Two three? Yeah. Yeah I'd be more happy with that and then given the rest

[2:30:54] of the money to the people that do exceed and you know and I don't have any skin in this game this is it if other than I want people that exceed to be working for us sure sure absolutely yes sir Lisa I was just going to add that did we do the cost of living raise the last time around or did we just go across the board we went across the board see and that's one thing that it's it's hard to do I mean the easiest way to get through this is across the board because even any nonprofit organization goes through this whether this happened to us when I was on school board the same thing you know it was just across the board because if you start trying to tweak numbers and tweak things that's where it becomes very difficult for you to do sure and that's true and even though and I'm agreement with Rodney I mean if they're there are folks out there they're just barely doing their job then I have no problem with just at least the cost of living, maybe they need to be gone, but at least the cost of living. But in the young man or the young lady that really go beyond the call of duty and are trying to do the best job they can do, and they do need to be rewarded now, whether they fall at the bottom end or the top end, that's where it becomes difficult. And I don't want to make it more difficult on you, just make it as simple as possible if that helps. Lisa, if you clarify again, you mentioned that those that would meet would be a number of 4.75%. I mean, initially what you were talking about, you're saying that if we go with that number, then really when we're talking about what back behind the other cities, then really we'll just be going up by 4.75. We can go up by the maximum of the meets percentage. It had to be the lower number. That's correct, yes, yes. And the reason for that is the ranges are going to move

[2:32:55] at that 4.75% as well. So if we applied the 5.5% to the ranges, and anybody that got me, it's only got 4.75, and if they were at the minimum of the range, they would move below the new minimum of the job. So we would hire somebody on October 1, making more than somebody that's in here. Any comments from the right wing on this? I'm just a little confused, but I'll have it worked out a bit. What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting? I think we have a day later. At least at this point what we need, if the council supports as far as that number right there, we can come back and take a look at how from a percentage standpoint what we could do with meets and exceeds and see how that affects the long term, the ranges and so so forth, but at this point what we're looking at is for the council to support a number which right now looks like a percentage of 5.5% we can go back and take a look at and really delineate and break it down to see what that looks like. Yes, I mean this is the value of what 5.5% is if you're on line with that I can come up with some sort of a schedule. Does anybody have a problem with the 1.561473 now? And next council when you have the budget reading we can have that. I have one last question. Yes. Is the cost of living rate, is it lower than the 4.7? Yes. Yes. What is it? Just over two. Right now. Two or three. Yeah. Wow. The other thing that I had, and you didn't ask for a consensus on this, is I would prefer that the firemen be right there with the policeman on that. That would be my opinion on that part. Mine too. I mean, that's a discussion. They do have some some ranks that are pretty low in the yeah

[2:34:56] And I prefer to keep that up because that's it's just gonna jack that up every year that we keep that more so that's why we've worked on Those fireman wages for the last two the last two budget cycles trying to trying to bring those up So we have been working on that's true. That is true. Maybe the last They're the place they would be five and a half right now under this the fire. I mean the police fires I'm sorry, PD is 6.26. Yeah. So, yeah, I'd prefer it to be closer to that instead of five and a half. We'll work it up then and bring it to you. Consensus says then that 1.56143 is acceptable. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. That counts to go development process 46941, does anyone have a problem with that? Health insurance 457379, does anyone have a problem with that? Sure. Nothing we can do about it. Yeah. At the last meeting, remember the discussion was that you wanted to see what that really did to the premium. So I've got that for you here. Thank you, Morgan. We have three options. The option one is the one that is reflected on the budget numbers that Morgan ran. This represents a 12.6% increase for the city premium and then in the low plan, the employee only goes from $13.20 to $16.50 and then all other tiers go up by 4%. So this is what the change is for the city's contribution in option one. It goes up $50.84 per employee per month. This shows at the top of the screen what the employees and retirees are paying currently for the low plan, the medium plan and the high plan and the ESCF is for employee only, employee plus spouse, employee plus children or family.

[2:36:57] So you can see these numbers are monthly and the difference in the bottom is what is proposed with the 4% applied to every tier except the employee only low plan. And this is the dollar figure that are the differences in option one on a monthly basis. So again, this comes out every pay period, so you would take this and divide it in half to figure out what the paycheck difference was. Option two represents a 10.6% increase to the city's premium, where the employee or retiree only on the low plan goes up to $20, and altiers go up by 10%. the city's contribution, the difference would be $42.68 per employee per month. And these are the two groups of what the current one is and what option two's proposed would be. And this screen shows the differences per month for each of those. Over option one. Over option. No, this is over present. Over present. And that option three is eight and a half percent to the city's premium where the low employee only plan goes up to twenty five dollars, all other tiers up by fifteen percent. So the city's difference would be thirty four thirty six and these are the two different premium tiers and that's what the differences are per tier. So obviously, option one is the best for the employees and the retirees because it shows the smallest increase. And I just really wanted to say that so many people, I don't think I talked about this last time, that so many people thought that the, hang on a minute, do this and talk, that the

[2:38:57] 4% of pay raise and 4% of the premiums, that it's the same thing, it washes it out. I mean, everybody keeps saying that, and that's not true. A 4% increase to the premiums is a much smaller number than a 4% increase of someone's salary. So people still kind of get that mixed up, and I just wanted to reemphasize that that's the case. Again, to also reemphasize that we have not raised our premiums for the employees or the retirees for the last four years. So this increase is a result of us being pretty tidy with the numbers and trying to keep everything nice and straight in our insurance plan. And hopefully this will be a nominal increase for folks. So I just wanted to break down what that $400,000 number was. I'm good with that. I'm good with option one. Yes. How does everybody else stay there? I don't think we're even. Okay. I didn't hear Marty. I'm sorry. I heard Rodney. Yeah. Yes. So under option one, the 457, 379 is the number. Yes. Dead service, 500,000. I don't know what we decided on that. What move it at all to the 885? I'm satisfied with that. And changing it from debt service to the debt service. Would you call it before the road? Council goal debt service. Council goal debt service. So that would leave future discussions for exactly how that would be allocated. I think there's been some discussion, whether it would be for streets or for a police station. We'll spend it on next week. The it is important if we label it for debt service more than it'll go into a different tax rate. Correct. And I'll point that out when we get to our record vote here shortly, that how that would change it. Well, now's the time to discuss the distinction, because on one side, it goes into the maintenance and operation side of the tax rate.

[2:40:57] If we dedicate it for debt service, it needs to go into the INS side of the tax rate, And it will affect the tax rate vote. So instead of having, we would still have a current tax rate of .776 cents per $100 valuation. But instead of 69 cents being in maintenance and operating in the operating budget, it would be 67, 676 cents. And instead of 8 cents going for debt service, it would be 10 cents going for debt service. And that makes exactly why. that we're planning to issue debt next year and have that service necessary for this money to satisfy. Okay. So we need to vote on this, don't we? That's shortly deals. The important distinction is you can't use it for anything other than debt. Okay. That is restricted. Yeah. Good with that. I think we're good with that. I'm good with that. Yeah. But we're getting up to our limit at 10, right? 10 is our limit. That's our limit. 10 is a local limit that we've set by process. there's a legal restriction that we're we've not met yet but we also want beyond 10 we can go but I like being that kind of guidance is helpful for us to know what what your preference is on we also we're also less lower risk when it comes to borrowing money in the future we definitely don't want to get that number much higher than I totally agree we've got a we've got a stellar credit rating and we want to keep it so the last item they're related to vehicle maintenance there is information here regarding that. Last time we came to council, y'all asked to have this broke down into kind of what we're looking at from the shortfall in vehicle maintenance side. First line item you see there is the raises from, you can see the raises that y'all gave last year and the raises that were proposing this year

[2:42:57] that what that cost this fund was $41,827 $827, the only way that we were able to garner that was to cut services and reduce services. So that's the only way we can make up those funds is by reducing services that we provide. The other portion of that number that we had was the enhanced services. The portion that we talked about when we talked about the data monitoring integration devices that we want to look, the software portions of it, facility system funding is another portion of it. In the real near future, we're going to have to replace and rework our fueling system. Of course, our fueling system is a vital part of what we do from our dealer, from PD fueling up to every vehicle in the city feels up to there in our tracking system and how we track all that. So what we're wanting to do there is take a small portion of these funds and put those back every year so that we can as we move forward within three to five years when we know we're going to have to replace that system that we already have those funds in place to replace that system so I don't have to come to y'all here in three years and go hey guys I need fifty sixty hundred thousand dollars whatever it is we already have those funds in place we're building them now so we have them in the future. And then another portion of the enhanced services is refunding an employee that we unfunded a couple of years ago. We haven't increased the rates that vehicle maintenance is charging in over five years. So in order for us to offset these costs, we did what we had to do. We started cutting back and cutting back, unfunding employees so we can shift those dollars. And so we're asking, we're just asking to replace that, you know, replace the funds when we get that employee back, increase efficiencies, get quicker turnaround times, be able to look at more efficient reporting, things like that.

[2:44:59] That's what that, that's what that unfunded employee is, is just to reinstate that employee to get back, get back some of our ability, increase our efficiencies there. And then we get down to the last thing, the big target. hold on I'm not understanding that and I don't know if I'm just not are y'all understanding that part I don't yeah I don't understand that two or three years ago in order because our budgets were shrinking as a whole and our expenses were increasing in order for us to maintain without going up on without going up on rates without asking for more money we shuffled around and basically we have a position on the books but when we we had a person leave we just didn't fill it. We just we sucked it up and of course when you do that it's kind of like kicking the can down the road you know you start losing efficiencies you start doing all these things and so it's it's a give or take and where do you want to be within that. Okay and so that's what the that unfunded employee is it was a position that we had a person left we just didn't fill it again use those those monies to cover the cost of increasing parts and other things that were going up on us. Okay. I understand. So that's what that was. Thank you. And then the last portion and the biggest portion of this is the underfunded departmental expenses. These are the expenses and we went back to fiscal year 14 where we had hard data our last year where we have hard data to go from. And our departmental expenses were underfunded by roughly 113,000 that year. And what happens is when that happens is these departments, you know, cars keep breaking, tractors keep breaking, things have to be fixed. And so in order for them to get them fixed, so we don't just park them, you know, and not use them, we have to go out and find monies elsewhere within budgets, whether it's parks or it's PD or it's code enforcement. And they have to basically, they have to find money somewhere else in their budget, whether

[2:47:01] it's a salary savings or it's, we didn't, we quit driving as much and we had gas savings or fuel savings. And so we rearranged monies to cover these expenses. And as we look forward and we're applying the inflation over these, over the years, over the last two years, if we're applying the inflation, we're looking at a fairly conservative the number of inflation across the industry at 5% for us, industry as a whole, they say that they've probably seen 10% increases across the industry with parts and all the other issues that they have. And so we put in an inflation factor of 5% to come up with the 196.9 to cover the underfunded, the underfunded departmental expenses. And again, it's an estimate. This is an estimated cost moving forward. The hard cost was from 14, but we've estimated this cost moving forward that we'll cover these expenses. Is it gonna be a 196.9? That's our best estimate at this point, based on what we're seeing from our side, what the industry is seeing as a whole. That is our best estimate moving forward, what these costs will be next year. And that's so, you know, we're not, you know, parks department or code enforcement or these guys aren't scrambling at the end of the year, trying to find money somewhere else in our budget to cover these costs so we can keep preparing their vehicles or their tractors or their mowers, whatever. I mean, we have Ryan 800 pieces of equipment, 900 pieces of equipment that he has to try to keep on the road all the time, so or keep mowing or whatever we're doing. And so that's the breakdown of these expenses. And while we're here today asking, And again, we haven't been to council, and we haven't asked budget or finance for any money in five years. Shane, I'm the one who asked for the breakdown

[2:49:01] in the detail to explain because that was a lot of money. Would you say that this is equivalent to deferred maintenance like we have been doing on our streets and stuff, that it has been deferred and been deferred and it's catching up with you? Yes, ma'am, it's not necessarily deferred maintenance, but it's... I'm saying it's like deferred. It is like that, yes, ma'am. It is very much like that. To where we've rearranged, we've juggled, and we've danced as much as we can finally dance before we just, we can't... I understand it now. We need some relief. I don't know how to request. So that's what we're asking for. I understand y'all's dilemma, and where y'all want to move things, but we do need some help. I think I'm for this also, But the last time, it was, you've just explained it very differently than it was explained last time. Last time it was talking about a computer system that was going to track the data on all these deals. And it sounded more like this computer system was going to cost 340,000. Didn't it come across to you guys? And we apologize for that, but from an operational standpoint, that's the part we get excited about. So we're more willing to, we like to talk and tell those things because we get excited about those things versus when you actually break down the numbers and you look at where it actually is, we were talking about the stuff that makes us excited from an operational standpoint, not necessarily the ugly numbers down in the bottom. So I'm way more in favor of this now hearing that it's not, we're not spending $340, $340,000 dollars on software, no sir, and I think the general public even would have probably sounded a little more like that last time, but now that with this breakdown, I'm in favor of doing this. The only dilemma of course is that we have those monies already allocated. We were looking

[2:51:02] at this spreadsheet a little while ago as far as how those monies will be divided up, and at this point, all those monies are taken, so you look at the $340,000 orders that come from the standpoint because right now we're at a complete break even is that correct with zero zero doubt Morgan correct so throw that number in there and it'll it'll go it'll take us to over our expenditures by that amount 340 thousand 340 340 we've taken it what take it away we did we're back 500 well you He gained $45,000. Well, that's why we had as a surplus last time. Shane, how much of that $340 is one-time expenditures? And is any of it one-time expenditures? Do you recall? How about we just split that and put half of it in debt service, another half in the vehicle maintenance, and the next budget cycle, we'll look at the other half. Because everything that Marty has said about streets is lost now. not everything. Or a lot of it. Not everything. $340,000 of it's lost. When he's gone in the red, you know, for five years and this is, he needs it, absolutely pushes come to shove.

[2:53:04] Well I can also, you know, you say push comes to shove on this vehicle maintenance stuff also. I think that the, like you were explaining the last time, this is going to save us money over the long run, these small things that we're going to do. technology is here I mean that's things just get better on these things and so I think that that's a needed thing as well as the the road stuff. This just gives me a John headaches. But then on the other hand the roads were part of our five priorities that we established back in 14 and I never even heard about this vehicle maintenance until last week when we had a budget cycled and all of a sudden I hear we need 340,000 per budget. We've not dealt with this before we have dealt with the streets. Yes sir and it is part you know when we look every year last year I know we talked in depth at one of our workshops last year about the expanded level and you remembered me coming y'all in and really saying look as we're dying on parks we're dying here we're dying here this is one of those things that it's been there but it's come to the forefront we're from from From staff's perspective, from my perspective, this right here from us, it's really starting to hurt. We're really starting to hurt in this area as much as we're hurting probably anywhere, maybe more than where we're hurting some other places. And you're correct. I do think that by implementing some of these things that we will actually start to see some savings. When we talk, look at the data monitoring portion of this, some of the other towns where there's other communities and counties throughout the state that have implemented this, and just based on what they're seeing and what they're looking at, that some of this has paid for itself, their return on investment has been as soon as 18 to 20 months, just based on the savings that they were able to garner from implementing some of these things in our enhanced services

[2:55:04] portion of this, they were actually able to see savings over time. So we're hoping that this sort of thing, you will see a return on your investment quickly, and from that standpoint, where we're moving forward. Shane, and there's gonna be a lot of intangibles too. There's gonna be every superintendent or manager that has fleet underneath them as part of what they do that is just gonna, they're gonna love this because it's gonna help them better manage and become more efficient within their divisions. Shane, the question that? Go ahead. Is this going to fix the broken mowers that Code has right now? Is this, would this be a fix? It will help their mowers get turned around quicker. It will help, you know, their mowers are gonna break. It's just, I mean, what we go out and we mow every day is rough. I mean, these are, you know, we're mowing, you know, by the time we get around to some of these lots that the guys in Code Enforcement are mowing, mowing around weeds that are an inch and a half, two inches thick and so I mean it's a brutal environment that we're mowing in, they're going to break. But by adding this other employee, by adding some of these services, we're going to be able to increase our turnaround times at the shop and get this equipment back out on the street faster. Charlotte? Shane, how many people do you have on your staff? In vehicle maintenance? know in under all of operations under your operations in your budget a little over hundred okay how many of those people do you anticipate will be retiring this next year or two years hope not i know that but i'm trying to point out i have i have quite a bit of my superintendents and supervising levels that are eligible that are eligible for retirement so the possibility of Losing the higher salary and the rehire is there. Yes, man, not maybe not necessarily in this division

[2:57:05] But overall under my our department. Yes, man, though that that is that is what I just wanted to point that out Rodney Saying this is just like your budget at home. You're looking at the same budget. I'm looking at right now and you want that money But somebody else wants the other money. Yes, sir I mean You you understand our predicament. Oh, yes, sir do I do I raise the health care for every single employee in the city more do I not give a raise to the firemen and I've been I've been I've been been here at this podium a lot of times talking the same thing so that's what I'm saying is have can can you help me out anymore on this and whittle this down some and the streets the public comes to us you know and they don't care yes sir the general public don't care about your monitoring and the in our gas problem that we have over there and they care about the streets they're driving on the streets every day and and I hear what Marty's saying is really made a point to me on this is we really have to sometimes you got to take some it's hard so well you do we don't all get what we want no sir it's not but we don't we don't want to continue to have an and granddison internal service fund so it works a a little bit differently. But we don't want to have either one. These guys continue to operate in the red within their fund. And we don't want to have to have other or have other departments have to reshift their priorities and their funds within their departments to keep their vehicles and their mowers and stuff on the road or running when those monies could be used to fix something else, repair something else, or utilize it elsewhere. We don't want to have that supplement going on there. You know, we want to get this lined up and cleaned up. And so hopefully that will take some burden even off of the other divisions within the general fund.

[2:59:06] What was the change that you just made there more into this? She just chopped it in half. She cut it in half. Cut it in half. OK. The mayor's suggestion to cut it in half. I'm the one that hasn't been able to say kick the can down the road yet. So if you've been kicking this can down the road for the last four or five years, take half of the money and kick it one more year, and let's work on it next budget, so that we can keep it balanced. If your proposal has traction with council, they have built a small fund balance. It's not as big as they would like, but they've built a small fund balance. If you funded half of their request through this mechanism this year, and also authorized the use of another 170 of their fund balance. Now that means that they're going to draw their fund balance down a little in this next year. They get the full 340 necessary to fund these improvements. And you've only had to pay for the first year, the first half. You're saying come back next year for the other half, right? Under your proposal, we could supplement this year with a piece of their fund balance, they can move ahead with the initiatives and try to capture the savings and recover the shortfalls of the past through the one-time use of their fund balance. That is, of course, that only works if this allocation has traction with your other, with your fellow elected officials. It also only works if you can get four votes on the council next year because it could be a different county, but. An additional $47,000 help. Actually, I was thinking about the same thing. You know, we have a goal, developed process to educate. And I think if we take that experience in-house for training that we were talking about, that we can give him our $46,941.

[3:01:10] I think some of that planning training is fairly specialized. And some of that we probably could do in-house. Maybe I don't know what the burdens are going to be on the new director. Some of that, I think it's- I just feel like vehicle maintenance, it's gotta be. We've got to start maintaining the equipment that we have and offer safe equipment for our employees to work with and in. They're out there doing manual labor with these tools and I want them to have not necessarily the best, but I want them to have safe equipment. So the council goal development process, you know, I'm willing to give it up to vehicle maintenance and kick that can down the road one more year. We've all said it now. I haven't said it. You haven't? We did identify, we did collect information on all boards and commissions. And we identified that what's being done in house and able to be done through free online, any of that is being done to its maximum in the existing operations. But how did that jump 47,000 in one year? I mean, we weren't doing it last year. I believe there was a directive regarding training for boards and commissions. There was. That's about $21,000. We don't have the money right. We don't have the money, but we don't have the money, so. You can also look at, I mean, that is what we were asked to provide, so they provided a dollar amount that is actually less than what you would need. But you can reduce that as well. And we'll start the training. And if we want to do more training next year, and we'll do more time. We'll reduce it down to 10,000. Start with little baby steps on these things instead of having the best. I will say, depending on what amount you put, when you're talking, what you all asked for was all the boards and commissions. There's a lot of boards and commissions that are planning. So when you take any of those to, let's say, a TML thing or whatever. So 10,000 may sound like a lot, but when you're taking those boards, it's really not. When you're paying for the registration, the getting them there, the hotels.

[3:03:11] So if you reduce it, cut it in half, I don't know, but if you want us to do some training, leave us an amount we can work with, not something that's so small that you can't do anything. Make it 26, 941 and put the other 20 back in the vehicle maintenance. Mayor, you're going to be outvoted on the vehicle maintenance, you know that. Yeah. It's all right. Well, they have a very small fund balance. I think the budgeted, go ahead, Tina. The current budgeted fund balance is $357,000 in change. So that's the projection, if they make, if they run perfectly with revenue budget and perfectly with expenditure budget, they're going to end up with $350,000. So if we authorize- What if we took $25, $75, $25, $75, I'm tired of kicking the can. I want to pick the can up and take it with me. I want to pick it up, throw it in the recycling van. So what if we took the authorized 75% out of fund balance? So that would leave 75% of that amount of money into council debt service. Is that too close? 75% of 340 is approximately 255. Is that sound right? And so that would leave about $100,000 in their fund balance. That's, yeah. That's, that's probably the most we would recommend. We want to leave a little money in there for. I'm totally with that. I can live with that. Yeah. That's a good idea. That allows you to start down the process, but it does thin your fund balance. Those kinds of things, taking that kind of risk is why it's good to have fun balances that is kind of a close shave and and we

[3:05:15] just say that council if we start having adverse experience we'll we may need to reopen the discussion we can bring back an amendment to the budget if we need to it can be amended now the key is close to the two That's true. That's true. The key is that next year that 75% won't be there to pull from fund balance, it'll need to come from another source. But again, we talked about the efficiencies that we should start experiencing that department, some reduction as Ms. Farmer's mentioned a while ago, that should help us a great deal. And I think that once we get a year under our belt, we'll have a better indication of how much those expenditures actually went down. So we may not have to pull anything else in the future from the fund balance even like that. I like it. It's good. What is our vehicle maintenance? So I thought it was going to be a hundred and ninety or something. That's twenty five percent of the three hundred and forty thousand funding seventy five percent of the request through fund balance. She's actually a perfect mortgage. She's only doing it. So this is only the general funding. I'm good. I'm good with that. I'm good with that. I'm good with that. I'm good with that. I'm good with that. I'm good with that. I have consensus on the left wing. Did that work? Yes. Consensus on all of them. That work. Okay. Now we need to take a vote on the tax, right? Yes, please. Yes. And if I may, I'll just update this after our most recent. Let's see. I think that the vote today is only related to the total. we don't need to at this time break down thank you I was gonna I could do somebody move to approve 7.7.6% per $100 valuation 0.776 for a one move prove is presented the tax rate at the 0.776 for $100 valuation that's a

[3:07:19] lot of need that's a second did you say get it I'm taking Lucy's sake Maria this will be a record I'm more I'm not even going there we do have a motion that we except which is maintaining the same tax base we have had for the last two years now. Yes. We raised it once, yeah. So we're not going up on taxes, it's just staying the same, and we're balancing our budget within our current expense. Which wasn't easy. And council discussion on this, any further? I just want to say I want to kick the can down. Do I have public comment on this item before we vote? All in favor of 0.0776 per $100 valuation as our tax rate please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Put a 6-0 amendment please, ma'am. Thank you. Okay, we through with that one. We have 35. What are you going to do? Take a break? Munch. Let's go to lunch. Let me read the executive. Item number seven, closed session, executive session under the revision of government code title Open Government Ethics Subtidal A, Open Government of Chapter 551, Open Meeting, Sub Chapter D, exceptions to requirement that meetings be opened under the following section. Section 55107118 to consult with the Attorney with the Government of Body, Sexy, and Device of its Attorney about pinning or contemplating litigation regarding Marta for Hershfield Energy Systems, LLCET-AL, Section 5510712 to consult with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the government of body under the Texas disciplinary rules professional conduct of the state bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the chapter regarding the West Texas water partnership it is 1236 1236 I'm gonna say 115 give let's let's take 40 that's 40 minutes let's say 115 we will try to be Okay 117 and I am calling us back to order. What number is that one that you're on

[3:09:24] Rebecca D I found it I found it Rebecca first public hearing and consideration of a service plan and an ordinance annexing to San Angelo city limits of certain properties located south of Luke 306 and east of Nick or Barca Road, Ms. Gary, you are all ma'am. Thank you, sir, Rebecca Garrett, Planning Manager. Subject property is 5.850 acres, again, located south of Loop 306, and eastern of Knickerbocker Road. It isn't in the ETJ, but if annexed, we'll be in Signal Member District number one, Councilman Fleming's District. Future land use of this site is neighborhood. It doesn't have any zoning now, but if annexed, we'll have a ranch and estate zoning district. You can anticipate the development of this property to be exclusively limited to single-family residential, single-family detached residential, as well as stormwater management and, or right-of-way. Here's the approved annexation plan. It is deemed as intermediate within that approved annexation plan. And here's a copy of the major thoroughfare plan. Here's a copy of the utilities map. All of these maps are located also in your staff reports. Two notifications were sent out within a 200 foot radius. We have received no responses in favor or against. The action requested today is to approve the Bentwood Annexation and the Associated Service Plan in Ordinance. Let me stop. The service plan that's in your staff report is up to date. There are no change in services proposed. So the level of service that every resident finds today will be met with this proposed annexation of 5.8 acres. And the ordinance also reflects that service plan. Again, the action request is to approve the Bentwood Annexation and the Associated Service Plan and the Ordinance on first reading. Thank you, sir. Rodney, that's your area. Move for approval as presented. Second. OK, we do have a motion to approve. As presented, I do have a second. I'll take Marty's second. Councilor, comment on this. Do I have public comment? Call for the vote. All in favor, please say aye.

[3:11:24] Opposed, nay. Let's put a 6-so on that one. Do you want to go to the consultant services ball, so you want to just stay and get hers? Or what do you want to do? What's your next one? It's the zoning, the P.E. Who? It's Blue. E.E. P.E. P.E. Yes, sir, the next one to be a discussion of an R.F.Q. OK, that's authorization proposed request for qualifications, consultant, service, associated with updating the city's zoning ordinance chapter 12, exhibit A. Continue, please, ma'am. I'll start this off just briefly to point out. This item we're bringing forward as a follow-up. This is one that the council has requested of us, one of the priorities had to do with the development process. So this is an item that we have promised to bring back to you. I just want to note up front, this is not an item where we're spending money today. It's simply you're authorizing us to proceed with trying to do this. So I'll let Rebecca go through the proposal. So as Mr. Weiss, I'm sorry, Rebecca Garrett, Planning Manager, thank you. As Mr. Weiss eluded, this is in fact based on some recommendations from City Council in terms of updating the zoning ordinance, this is just to get us started on the process and for us to start putting together this RFQ to send it out for bids, or that is for qualifications. So the zoning ordinance was last updated in the year 2000. That's the major overhaul. It has been updated in piecemeal since 2000, but never has there been since 2000, a comprehensive global examination of this document. As I said earlier, there have been several council requests to update the zoning ordinance. In particular, since I've gotten here, I've identified several things within the zoning ordinance that need some updating. Quite frankly, need some identifying. And we've heard from members of the public that have identified that there are some things that need to happen within the zoning ordinance. So what are some of those things?

[3:13:24] We need to create what I feel is an overlay district within Lake Nazworthy that reflects the master development plan which was paid for by city council and needs to be implemented within the zoning ordinance. We need to create a what we think might be the best fit which would be a form-based code for downtown And I'll be happy to explain what that means. If you have any questions Introduce some landscape standards both with zero escaping and with some very green principles like rainwater harvesting Some re examination of the heavier commercial industrial uses and their use standards This came to light in particular with a Hill Street facility where the zoning ordinance didn't adequately address those type of heavier needs or uses. And a cleanup basically of many of the sections within the zoning ordinance itself. In the memo that I produced for City Council, I have a much more extensive and comprehensive list of some of the things we want to address as part of the zoning ordinance update and I'll be happy to go through them if you wish later on. So this is a very quick schedule if you will. It is it is very I wouldn't say it's conservative, it's us moving as quickly as we can given the fact that a lot of this falls within holidays. So the next steps are a discussion with the Planning Commission and the Development Task Force regarding the goals and recommendations that they may have. So we're reaching out to the public in terms of the developers and the consultants that are out there as well as the Planning Commission and we will be touching base also with the zoning Board of Adjustment to garner their ideas for what they would like to see as part of any kind of updates or changes of the zoning ordinance. The next step, we can anticipate that happening in the month of September. We'd like to put together the RFQ package and send out the RFQ with the timetable in October. So that gives staff a chance to take all of those recommendations and kind of tweak what I'm showing you today and what's in the memo. Given the fact that it will fall within a holiday and given that these things usually take about 30 to 45 days

[3:15:25] to process, we're looking at reviewing the RFQ submittals once we get them back in January, selecting a finalist and asking council to allow staff to negotiate along with the legal department in February, and as early as March, ask council to authorize staff to execute the contract. Now somewhere within this latter part is where we'll be, and actually through that the entire process, we'll be identifying where this funding will come from. So today, again, as Mr. Weiss indicated earlier, we are just sending out, we'd like the permission to send out an RFQ to find out what the ranges for these type of services would be. This is, and I've been doing this for a while, so this is going to be a major update. What I showed you in this slide may look small, but it's a big deal. A form-based code is a big deal for downtown. An overlay district for Lake Nazworthy is a big deal, so this is not just an update. This is not just going to be a cleanup of the zoning ordinance. These are some very major changes. So I want you to be aware that some of these items will require some extensive work, both from staff and from the consultant. So with that said, I'd like the action requested is to authorize staff to begin the request for qualifications for consultant services associated with updating Chapter 12 Exhibit i.e. the zoning ordinance. I'd like to make a motion to approve. Do you have any ideas to approximately what this major rehab is going to cost? Charlotte we've done a little research and I don't think we can totally answer that but I I would venture to say we're depending on what components at the end we select that we want to include as part of it. It could be anywhere from one to four hundred thousand dollars depending on what you choose as your components that you want to include. And so I'm glad you asked that and to say that earlier, I don't want that to be a surprise

[3:17:27] to anyone later on, but what I want to make sure is that you want to ever know that number unless we proceed with trying to select someone who could do it and then we negotiate to see whether we can come to a solution on price or not. Mike here will have the challenge of looking as to where we might find those funds, but That's where we stand. We just spent a moment. We just spent all of our friends. I think we can take many of these. It can indeed. So depending on how complex the update is. You do realize that probably some of the hardest hits we take is council is over consultants and these studies that we do. We get a lot of flack on these. Yeah, we do, but we get a lot of plaque over everything. Not updating our zone until it becomes a problem, and then we try to update it. And that's it. This is pre-endful. Well, and one thing I think over time, you know maybe the last time it was updated, there was the CGCH issue where basically everything that was in that classification, well it was allowed to continue, not sort of as a legal nonconforming land use, but it was left. And so you have all of this, what now I would kind of describe as heavy commercial, scattered throughout the city, that's very problematic as you're trying to revitalize neighborhoods in certain commercial districts, and so it really in truth, I think even if you go, you We have to go back further to 2000, it never was completely addressed. What I can tell you is this will be a joint effort between the consultant and staff. Staff needs to go through what's located online, what we have as printed versions because those versions are different. So we need to go page by page and produce a single document that is correct.

[3:19:27] We need to work with the zoning consultant if and when we bring them on board and work hand in hand with them and divvy it up as needed. So this will not be just a consultant's job. It will not just be a study. This is an actual tangible document that we utilize every single day in the planning and development services department. So this is unlike any study. This is a true document that you all use. It's a legal document. It is indeed. Motion has been made. Do we accept this as presented? It has been seconded. Do I have any further comment from Council? Do I have public comment on this item? Call for the vote. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Go ahead and put a 6-0-1, that would please, ma'am. If it is all right with everyone, since we have Mr. Agiri here, could we move pulling Jay up next for consideration? Do I have any problem on the right wing? Is that all right with y'all? That's fine. Left wing's all right with y'all. Jay is consideration of an action related to number one. Selection of a uniform election date for charter amendments, number two, propositions proposed by the charter review committee for placement on the election ballot. I will be our City Attorney Theresa James and Mr. Aguirre, your own sir. Well, thank you. And first and foremost, I'd like to just tell everyone that we are on schedule as we had stated when we first started this process. And I think one of the clarifications that we need to have today is in Theresa, I think you were going to address it. And that is, do we have the November election or do we have the May election? Teresa can you expound on that please? Yeah, from what Ryan has told me that the November elections gonna cost $30,000 because it's not combined with any other election and it's 30,000 currently un-vegeted dollars. So before we move forward on presenting the rest of the items we wanted to make sure that there was a consensus on a November election because if we go to May there might be

[3:21:27] some tweaking we have to do the propositions. What's the consensus as a council, I can see advantages in November, I can see advantages in May. We do have city council elections in May. What do y'all think about it, Jordan? Well, in listening and going to some of the meetings, I heard both sides of it and it was immaterial to me, but the pressures, undo pressures that it puts on any running council member in May is really unfair. unfair, even though we're not supposed to endorse or speak out against it once it's been approved by council to be done, but it is unfair. In November, I had a former member of the committee from the last time there was a charter review contact me and he felt that November there simply would not be enough people to vote on it and it wouldn't be an accurate vote of the true feelings of the people. And in talking to the various current members, their ideas since on the state ballot, there's going to be an election in November, and being items with reference to the state's constitution that the city items should fall in line because it was a charter change and more emphasis and more detail can be spent on studying the facts of this charter change for a November election versus a next May election. And I tend to agree with that. It would be a higher priority of items that we could speak to and address and educate the people. And I'm going to yield to Mr. Gary, because that's what I'm getting from the public meetings that I attended.

[3:23:28] And that is correct. We've established a lot of momentum over the past few months. We've had a lot of meetings. I think to delay the process now would be, in some respects, unfair to those that have been very involved. And I'm talking about the general public. We could always restart the process, but there's a lot of momentum. A lot of people have become very engaged and I think that that momentum would be lost if we delayed it. So I think the when we discussed at our meeting yesterday or on Monday, I think our consensus was that it's better to go forward because of all of the elements that we've gone out. We've talked to the people. We've got the polls out there. So the timing is good for now. But I also understand the budget. I was here when you did the budget crunch. So either way of just looking for the opportunity to go forward and waiting for your recommendation. Elizabeth, what do you think about it? I think I agree that November is better just to maximize the momentum that's been created. I don't think that this is necessarily a compelling issue for the average citizen. I don't think they really understand how it impacts them. I think you notice that from how many people come to meetings. But for what we do, it's important. And there has been a lot of coverage with our media outlets on it. And so I think personally that November kind of maximizes that rather than to delay. I think also that one of the issues that y'all have proposed that be considered for the ballot has to do with bringing the conflict of interest issue in line with state law, rather than having the San Angelo charter be somewhat of an anomaly. And I think that issue, maybe more so than the others, is the thing that makes me want to get this to the voter, because that affects who in the future will run for counsel.

[3:25:31] And so to me, that's kind of the most important part. The others are preferences, but I think to get us in line with state law is the reason that I want to get this to the voters sooner than later. Yeah. Let's see. I will just have to agree with Elizabeth everything she said, but I do. I would like to see it in November and let's just do it. Rodney? Let me get them and then I'll come back to you. I also agree with the November date and one of the main things I agree with the several of the issues that are coming up on in the charter review will affect, could very well affect that. One would be the term limits. The second thing would be the pay. So those things, I would hate to have the election of a person that thinks they're going to get a two-year term. And at the same time that we're voting on whether it's going to be two-year or it's going to be four-year, it kind of clarifies it a little bit better on that. And the momentum and the great job that the charter review committee has done would all be lost if we do wait six months on this deal. I mean, you were talking about voter apathy and lack of voter participation. That's in every one of our elections. We know that this very well from our elections that we see now. We just don't have turnout, which is shame on us. That's a bad thing, but I don't think it's going to be much different between the November and the May. Marty? I think we ought to go with November. And it didn't make a difference, me either way. I just wanted to point out the struggles that we were having this morning is next year's budget It doesn't address this this would be now November would be next year's forget what I was gonna say I'm a month off. Well, it's still a valid the budget is still a valid concern What I would propose we do is we'll get finance to prepare a budget amendment request to bring to counsel We'll get the funding approved in this year that way the expenses which are necessary the commitments which are necessary

[3:27:34] area we can make right away and the monies that are left over will carry over into the new year to be used for that election and that way the operational requirements are fulfilled we just need to find a funding source within this year. Consensus says we do it in November so that's well that being said we'll go right into the into the ballot language now up to this point what we've done is we've presented to you all All of the amendments are the propositions that we have proposed. The stage that we are now is the actual language that will be put on the ballot. There's two documents that we'll be sharing with you. The first document that I will cover is the actual ballot language. And then toward the end of the presentation, we will show you the documents that are the clarification. Very verbose. They almost read like a book. will be used primarily for educational purposes within the media. We'll ensure that everyone understands that language in those documents. So when they go to vote, they will understand what they're voting for. So this, what we'll cover now is very concise, very complete, and we're trying to make it very easy for the voters to understand what they're voting for. So with that, let me get started. In section eight, what we'll read is, proposition number one refers to term of office. The language that will be stated, and I apologize for reading, but that's the easiest way to go through this, shall section eight of the city charter be amended to provide for four year staggered terms for mayor and council members. Thank you. Number two, again, term of office. Shall section eight of the city charter be amended to provide term limits of eight consecutive years, excluding partial terms for mayor or council member.

[3:29:36] Any questions or do you prefer that I go through all of them? Why don't we go through all of them and then we'll go back and take them? I suppose we're gonna have to vote on these, are we? Well, we don't need an actual vote. I can sense this. Do you want your consensus on which one should go on? Why don't we go all the way through them, and then let's go back and start on them, and we'll go through them one at a time. Very good. Section nine, and we're looking at proposition number three, the topic is qualifications. Shall section nine be amended to provide qualifications for candidates seeking an election to the office of council member or mayor, or include that the candidate must be 18 years of age older at the time of election must be a resident of the city for the mayor and resident of single member district for the council members must not be an employee of the city and must not hold any other elected office and those qualifications continue to apply for holding those offices. Proposition number four again conflict of interest and qualifications. Shall section nine be amended to add a provision that any question of city council regarding conflict of interest of the mayor or of council member be referred to the city attorney for a legal opinion. Section 10 proposition number five we're dealing with compensation. Shall section 10 be amended to provide for an increase in an annual compensation for mayor and council members to $4,200 for the mayor and $3,600 for council members payable in monthly installments of $350 for the mayor and $300 for council members. Section 14, the vacancies, proposition number six is vacancies.

[3:31:39] Now section 14 of the charter be amended to provide that when a vacancy in any elective office shall occur, an election and an election is required that the election be held on the first uniform election date under state law. Section 47, talking about initiative and referendums, shall subpart C of section 47 of the chart be amended to delete the requirement that each sign or on a petition for initiative or referendum provide a voter registration number. Proposition number eight, same title, Schol sub part g of section 47 of the charter be amended to allow more timely means of notification by deleting the requirement that the city clerk shall immediately notify the initiative or Referendum Committee by Certified Mail. Proposition 9, initiative and referendum, same topic. Child Section 47 of the City Charter be amended by adding a new subpart I to read as follows. No resolution adopted by initiative or repealed by referendum shall be substantially changed or re-adopted for six months except by a supermajority vote of five of seven members of the City Council. Section 48, it's a proposition number 10, and it's recall. Charles section 48 of the charter be amended to delete the requirement that each signer on a petition for recall provide a voter registration number. Section 60, proposition number 11, the chief of police. Charles section 60 of the charter be amended by changing the office of police from elective to appointed subject to the approval of the City Council and the

[3:33:40] leading section 61 residency requirements. That is the language that will be on the actual ballot. What you have before you now is the the discussion topics that we will use with the media and for the educational purposes of the public and what we have on the left is what is on the ballot today what we have on the right is a proposal so we can instead of going through these what I'd like to do is go back to the first section and then respond to any questions that you might have first starting with term of office. Any questions on term of office that I may respond to? Now what we are doing here all we are doing is authorizing this to go on the ballot. That is correct. If the consensus is that we approve of this going on the ballot then it would go on the ballot and the voters would make the decision. We're not saying yes or no either way except does it go on the ballot or does it not go on the ballot. The clarification that we're looking for? Mayor, you are correct, but what we're looking for is, do you agree with the verbiage? Not whether it's right, yes or no. So we are not responding to a yes or no, but is the language clear enough that we believe that the voters will not have a misunderstanding home? Charlotte? I'm sorry, I got lost to that. We are on proposition one or proposition two. We are on either one, we're on ballot language, term of office, either proposition or proposition two. On proposition two, is it clear in that language that I'll use me for an example, I've been here eight years. Does my eight years start when this goes into effect, or does my eight years that I've already served, is that included? This goes into your eight years which start again so you would have a fresh start as the

[3:35:46] passing of this change to the charter. So we cannot go retro on anything. It is a fresh start. Can I ask you my question on that one? Very well. Anyone have a problem with the proposition number one and the way it's written? Everybody satisfied with the language on proposition one? Everybody satisfied with the language on proposition two? There's two of them then okay proposition number three about the qualifications for mayor or council is everybody satisfied with the language there Charlotte I have a question The current language is must be a resident in that Single-member district for at least six months. You've dropped the six months in this current language Is that meaning they can live there one week and be eligible to run in that district? I don't believe we discuss that but yes you know in the what do they call that the unexpected consequences it would say that you must live in that district and we did not add the six months we could reinstall the six months it was just unattended consequences of us not adding it but I mean I'd rather you put the six months in there myself because it is important yeah very good we did not I'll discuss that good catch did you have a question on another one Marty. Yeah, I had a question on two. I did okay It's two stands if if one fells and two passes then it's eight years. It'll be four term. I mean it might If on number one fells and number two passes it would just be two two two and two so you would do four to your terms Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Good question. Okay. Back to three. I think it should have six months. They need to live in the district six months. That's probably should be a tree. So you've got that down and I'd like to do that and make some clarifications on proposition number three.

[3:37:53] You speak closer to the microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. The qualifications will go into effect at the time of election. A question came up yesterday. What if an employee like myself. We're going to retire and still wanted to run for office. If I was not retired during the election, but retired at the time of the election, would I be able to run? And the answer to that would be yes. The second issue that came up is dealing with what Ms. Grindstaff referred to as the conflict issue. The current language that was approved in the committee is in conflict with state law. And I don't mean in conflict where it's opposing state law, it just adds additional requirements to state law. Under state law, a council member can actually receive money under a contract with the city, provided they disclose there's a conflict, and they do not participate in the discussion or vote on the item and they fill out a proper affidavit. The way the charter is currently written, you cannot, as a council member, receive any money through a contract with the city. So we need some clarification on which of those two directions you guys want us to go when we're drafting this language. We take a shot at it. Go ahead, ma'am. I think it's very important that people have the opportunity to run for council if they are in business in the community. And I'm not really sure that when that was written, it was meant to keep people away from the council, but to make sure that they weren't inappropriately enriched by that relationship. If they have to recuse themselves from any discussion and not be associated with it at all, I would rather see more people feel like they can meet the requirements of council service than not. So I'm a proponent of our charter moving in line with state law rather than having that additional language that would preclude business people from being able to serve.

[3:39:55] Would you would you read would you add something to that to make that reflect or or is our as it is does that reflect that no We would have to change we would actually change You know the instructional language the informational language and maybe tweak the actual ballot language a little bit the other protection There is in state law now is a separate chapter of the local government code chapter 176 requires all vendors and all public officials to fill out a conflict of interest disclosure. So if a conflict were to occur when a contract is being initiated, that would have to be disclosed. If it weren't, that could be terms to avoiding that contract. And there's also criminal penalties for failing to do that. So there's additional protections in the law now that were not there when these provisions were first put in our charter. One of the things we talked about early on was the adequacy of the state law. If the state law is adequate to control based on our expectations, then why do we need anything locally to supplement that? The two sets of rules simply confuses and complicates, sometimes unnecessarily. And so that's from an early set of conversations, not from a mature set of conversations in the Committee, but we have dealt more than once with this conflict of interest business and the complexity that local rules combined with the state rules creates. So what you're saying is on some issues, there could be, I mean, absolute silence in the charter because you would just defer them to state law on any particular subject. That's correct. And on this particular issue, that's true. There's already state law provisions governing conflicts and governing disclosure of conflicts. is that the clause that you would add that it would reflect state law? We would just remove those provisions from the language and then we could say you know disclose any conflicts in accordance with state law. Everybody happy with that?

[3:41:58] Yes. Clean. Okay. Item number four, city council regarding conflict of interest. Everybody probably, allowing the city attorney to make the decision on a con, I think that's an excellent one. Does anybody have a problem with that? You got consensus there. Can we go back to three for just one more second. I'm sorry. There's one more issue on three that it's not something we can't overcome but I just wanted to point it out on B in that section of the charter as proposed. It says that if it is discovered that perhaps the mayor has an interest in a contract he forfeits his office. There's a lot of charters that require that. The problem with that is the only way to enforce that is to take it to district court. There's not going to be a process internal to the charter itself that's going to allow that to be easily done. So it's not something that is legally invalidated. It just isn't hurdle that I want you to be aware of if we go forward with this language. Put some language in there to make it all work. That's not a hurdle we cannot overcome. compensation. Anybody? Prose or cons on this? I'll start out the language says monthly installments pay payable and monthly installments. Obviously that's this is not the meat of the issue but payroll occurs semi-monthly rather than monthly. It would be simpler from an administration standpoint if either we We were silent on that, or we said these annual amounts would be divided and paid in accordance with current payroll practices. For example, some organizations find it beneficial to alter their pay schedule. If we can pay counsel consistent with the way we pay other, with the way we pay employees, that's the easiest way. We just divide up whatever the annual amount is and pay accordingly. If unless the committee had a specific objective.

[3:44:00] No, we didn't. And as a matter of fact, when we took the word monthly, we did not break it down to weekly, you know, every two weeks. We just said that every month, they would be paid. However, the payroll paid that, it didn't matter. We did not drill down to say, you know, it had to be every two weeks or every week. But we said, once a month, this will be what they will attain. If we can make it easy to administer, that'd be great. make it bi-monthly to the amount of $3.50 per mayor, $3.00 per council. Well, and if we could be silent, you know, we have considered it in the past, we've considered the possibility of being paid every two weeks instead of twice a month. There may be some point in the future where that's an advantage, and so if we can retain the flexibility- Can you make that work, ma'am? I can make that work. Okay. Can we have that? Thank you. Can we get rid of Proposition 5? I think the voters got rid of it last time. Can I ask a question? Yes ma'am. With reference to the compensation and attendance section 10, you said the information on the left side was as it is now, the information on the right side is proposed. Yes ma'am. I'm having trouble understanding from my side. As it is now because we don't make $500 a month. We only made $480. It's $40 a month, $40 times 12 is $480. So where does the 500 and where does the 600 come in? I think it's $41 and change per month. So what it is? Yes, it is. Intel, I'll never look at it. I just want to clarification. No, good point. Everybody had to be five as it was. Well, one person's not happy with it. What year was that established?

[3:46:03] Did we ever determine what year that was established in 1947-1937-1915, when the charter was written. 1915. 1915 was when it was first established and it's been, I think what they said is the number of years and so it's, I think we've done all of the math. This is a very good number to start with. I think when you ask the public out there, they were okay with this number. Everyone had pros and cons, but everyone understood. But I think in 1915, that number, or whatever day, would have represented a salary rather than a professional staff, and so we can't compare the two. I mean, even if you want to look at inflation between over the hundred years, it's a different form of government than it was then. And it is. If you try to compare the 500 today to this number, it does not compare. This is significantly lower. I mean, this comes down to, I forgot how many for four dollars an hour or something, you know, when it comes down to. So it's- I think happy if preposition five went away. I think it's always divisive for the citizens, but why? The recommendation is to maintain it. We'd have to go back and re look at it and get public opinion again. But at this point, they get to vote yes or no. So whether it goes away, I would say to leave it to the voters and then if they say no. That's what I agree with, I think it's, I mean, y'all have gone through all this trouble. I think let the voters decide, and another thing is if the voters do decide, just think about the other people that are going to come after us. I mean, we can't just, I mean, we're deciding what we want, I mean, let's be honest and say, hey, somebody may come after us and say, this is great, we appreciate it. That's what the public is trying to do is say, in appreciation, this is what we want to do. Shorter, how you feel about it? In material to me, one way or the other, I think it's a nice gesture of our time spent.

[3:48:07] Voters decide. I just didn't let the voters decide. Marty, how do you feel about it? That's fine with my voters. Let's keep it on then. Proposition number six. Let me say about this proposition. This is just bringing our charter into alignment with state law. This is asking. Yes. Everybody happy with six? Yes. Yeah, I do. I kind of have a problem with this one as well. Why shouldn't that put a voter registration number on well in this? This this directly comes into play against me on this situation. I think it's too easy to go out and ask for signatures for people. Absolutely. And if they truly have a problem with someone that's up here that you can find out what your voter registration number is and you can put it on there and sign it. sign it. There's two items though it's not just number seven it's item number ten I have a problem with also. It's absolute waste of city staff's time that goes into evaluating presenting the typing of if they don't have a valid voters registration. It's kind of like an unsigned letter is or a lot easier for them to do that and it also just allows it for a recall election you have to have so so many signatures from that district, which this will save us a ton of time on figuring out whether they are ready to go. So you're saying pull it? I would like to pull number seven and number 10, just pull it. Marty, how do you feel about it? Yeah, that's fine. I would say pull it. I don't like it either. I think they need to provide a registration. Charlotte, you've already said that. I've already said, Lucy. Yes, sir, I'm pulling it. You want me to say let the voters decide? No, I would prefer that it be struck and not be on the ballot. I think you've got consensus. Number seven is gone. look at 10 when we get there. Number eight. I don't have a problem with that. This just means we use like modern-day communications. That is correct. You may have a problem with number eight. No. Number eight stands. Number nine. I don't

[3:50:12] really like this one either, but we already have that as far as part of our ordinances. Is it the super majority Mike? I think it is. I think it's six votes. It's a the super majority under the ordinance as it stands now. I think so. I think it does apply to all ordinances though and there might be an instance where there's initiative or referendum that's brought forward that doesn't, that that's not a requirement in state law. The issue with this one mayor was that, let's say that something passes today, the issue was you could change it tomorrow and so- Even if it's a bad law and all to be changed tomorrow, we ought to have the authority vote. Well, there is that qualification there, it says that if it is bad or there is some unintended consequences that occur, we can't change it by a super majority. But this is, we passed a law today, let's let it set for six months, and then if we determine after six months, it needs to go away, it goes away. They went through the trouble, they went through all of the process to get it on the books. Now let's let it set for six months. I would like to pull this one as a whale, but I'm just one person, let's take consensus. I would too, the people that I know that have been involved and that have read some of the initiatives felt that that was not necessary, and that, right, if it's, the council doesn't need to have their hands tied for an action that they didn't. And if four boats passes along, it shouldn't take five or six to kill a thing. That's right. And one of the meetings, or two of the meetings that I was attending the joint discussed is it was the fact that it was changing the super majority from six to five that if four could put it in and if that fifth person you know that that was changing it from five from six excuse me to five and that's that's what it says is that being missed here no that is correct that the meat of it though was to let it set for six months I would say pulling you what do you agree

[3:52:13] with me on that list but I would say yes sir Lucy I agree shortly I don't okay Marty I do you pull it pull it which one that was that was number nine okay number ten that's that's the same one you were talking about Rodney and I would agree that needs that needs to be pulled it needs a voter registration number ought to be part of a recall I would not want to change it I would say pull number 10. You're right Nick Paul Marty Paul Charlotte Paul Lucy Paul Elizabeth Paul that one and I'd like to pull that one that's been voted on 14 times citizens have been voting on this since 1943 I would like to pull this one off and I would also just for history in 1943 we had an appointed chief and the citizens came to the city council and said please put this on the agenda as an election so we can vote on it. And the city council said no. And so the citizens had to go out and get the petitions. They had to get the registered number. They forced the council to put it on and it passed by something like an 80-20 vote. And that was 13 elections in the past. I would like to pull this but I'm just one vote. So I'll start with you Elizabeth. Oh why did you have to start with me? Why don't you start with Rodney? Rodney I'll start with you. Yeah cuz I'm about to leave anyways. Okay. No I actually want to leave this one in the Okay, and one of the main reasons why I want to leave this one is Tim who is the chief of police he he is for this and Letting the public decide one more time. We've already got we already have the election that it sounds like we're gonna set it for November We're gonna have these things on here. This is one that I would like to leave on there Marty Let them decide one more time. I'm deferring to Elizabeth. No No. No, I don't know. I think we should leave it. I think we should leave it. Our population

[3:54:13] has changed considerably. The make-up of our population has changed considerably and I do think it's unfair for our chief of police to every four years fight for his job which means two of that four years he's trying to organize a campaign and instead of devoting himself full time to the job plus it's must be impossible to set your family budget at 30 for 30 years on a four-year job. That's my opinion. I choose to leave it also like they said let them decide. I want to leave it on there. I'm not sure that St. Angelo is ready to vote in favor of it but I'm curious and I think the mistake that I made mayor when we've talked about this over the course of time is that I I always assumed that if we, if the voters approved this, that Chief Vosquez would then assume the position of the appointed chief. And I'm not sure if that's the language that's necessary here, but that would be maybe an addition that I would like to make to this, because I don't think that for the most people who are supportive of an appointment, I don't think they see this or want it to be opened wide to the country that they see Tim as being the most qualified police chief for St. Angelo. So I don't know how to address all of that. And then there are probably 50 point whatever percent that want their right to vote for the chief. But generally speaking, it's not an issue of him and his qualifications, it's just the sort of the theoretical concept. So, so by consensus of five to one, we'll vote on it the 15th time. Okay, what about the language regarding whether he stays in place if it becomes important? I think that's important. I don't think that should be added. Because I think that's the big mystery is that they don't, we're in such an odd transitional

[3:56:18] time. I don't know how you would, there's wording, you can, I don't know how you would say it, He's still going to let him play a little bit with us. Somehow he just transitions right into, I mean, there shouldn't be a change over whatsoever. We have other language in the modified language that allows for transition. I can fix that. The question would be are we saying that he would transition until his four-year term is up and then he gets appointed or he or he transition into the position and he stays in place until the council decides he's no longer fix it needed. That's city manager with council city. Y'all fix it. Okay. So he would transition in place. I'm trying to get clarification when we go to the public. So he would transition in place and then removal would be up to the city manager to do his job as required. Yeah, well, I think that's a simple way to put it. Of course, I think that'll work out just fine. Of course, it's with the understanding that it mentions by appointment the city manager, but it's also any any changes that are made. Of course, I take to the city council as well, any decisions and of course they confirm it or not, you know, so I like that. I think that'll work out just fine. Okay, let me see if I get it straight. So you're saying on this ballot thing, you're gonna say if they go to elect you know they choose to like but if they go to choose to a point then Viscus would be already that he'd transition into the appointment that is correct until he was unappointed until he was unappointed which is different than than what we were saying we would say he would finish his term and then it would be up to the city manager at that time to interview but in this case he stays in place until such time removal is requested by the City Manager. I like that. I'd be honest with you. That's good language. Okay. And Theresa

[3:58:19] No can handle miracles. What's what's the next for that all? That's it. That is it with that. Let me just close by as far as we're done. Our next steps just for the record. Once you approve, I think we've approved everything at this point. We have one more meeting. Our committee will be disbanded formally at your next meeting when we go through the next process. At that point, we'll take the subsequent steps for educational purposes and everything else, and that is to ensure that whatever we say is not a true reflection of the city, because we may stand one way or the other toward a particular voting. So I just publicly, while we're on the air, like to thank the team, like to thank the council, like to thank the staff for all of the support they provided and I truly enjoy doing this so thank you. Thank you Trinidad. Thank you. Good job. When I'd like to thank Trinidad because he had intended on presenting this today and Harry left, Harry left didn't he? And Mr. Cantrell wanted y'all to know that he attended all three of the meetings but he couldn't stay for the afternoon so he wanted he wanted that to be known as well. Mayor there should be a public hearing on this item as well. I don't know if there's a public here to speak. So this is a public hearing. Yes. So do I have comments from the public? Come ahead Chief. The only question that I had was when I saw the wording on the last part said something about the confirmation of the council by council. So does the wording say appointment by city manager confirmation by council? Yes that's the same thing with It's in current charter, as a matter of fact, any direct appointee of mine actually is by confirmation of the council. OK, well, one of the things that I would throw out for consideration is it also the unemployment, as you would say,

[4:00:21] confirmed by council as well. Is that also in the wording? So the only thing is the confirmation is the hiring, but not the- You'll be like every other director. Right. And, you know, I'm very supportive of making the change, But being the elected chief now for 11 years, I kind of have a good sense of what the issues have been in the past with the citizens in regards to changing it. Obviously, there's always the distrust of local government, government period in general. I think that there would also be, if our citizens felt there wasn't a way for a council member or someone would be upset with the chief that the chief just get fired and I think that we would be there would be some type of protection. Now and what I saw was there was something in there about a super majority for the termination of the city manager. It's no longer on her. It's no longer on her. It's no longer on her. Okay. So that would be one of the things that I think you might want to consider. Thank you. Oh. That's it. It was discussed, I believe, Mr. Gary. It was discussed and it puts it in the category as the same as any other department hit. That is correct. It's a fire chief. Fire chief. He falls under the same category as the fire chief. So we did not change any processes when we met with Daniel What we did is we clarified the point and then just followed the due process that exists today You better vote with me, Gee Actually, let me let me kind of clarify. Yeah, you know when it comes to terminating an individual a director for one thing it's Council

[4:02:24] Especially if it's a big change, I'm gonna let you know what's going on on. It's not just something that I would take very lightly and say, you know what, I'm tired of this individual, I'm going to go and move on and get somebody else. I think that would be a better fit. It doesn't work that way. You know, I know that as long as the directors are performing and doing a really good job for the city, it would be crazy for me to even consider making a change for any reason. My position is apolitical. I work with the elected officials. I am not a politician. I basically am running a business and I had to make sure that the individuals that are in place are good for those positions and with the chief of police from everything that I've seen. I think he does a great job for the city. Again, that's just something that I don't take very lightly. Any decision that I make as a city manager for any director, whether it's to hire or to terminate, it's a very thought out very well thought out process basically and I know that I put a lot of thought into it and make sure that council members is made aware we need decision was being made and I'll keep the same process going. Mayor I think that also the chief needs to know that we regularly see or in the past if there's been a director change that the city manager brings that to us as a matter of courtesy so that we're aware of what's going on prior to it being made public but the hiring and firing is completely his we're not involved in that but we do know about it prior to it being made public and I think that's good for the purpose of also buy-in but it's not you you will never if this goes forward and it was supported by the voters you wouldn't be involved with us in that capacity. Right, but the wording in this particular says that you will confirm it. So you actually, you can, you will actually be part of the hiring process. No, it no more than any other person. That's exactly the language that's in the charter now for the other positions. So could the

[4:04:27] city manager potentially recommend someone for hire and you not confirm that? You're pretty crazy, wouldn't it? But I mean could you potentially could that happen? Right? So basically council does have the authority to hire. Right? Just just just like all of them. There is not a single one two or three of us up here that can say I'm gonna get your job. Right. We can't do it. Right? No I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not particularly talking about me. I'm just saying that the wording is in there that allows for that or the person in your position or in my position or in any other position that wording is in there that allows for that and I'd like to see it pass and so I want our citizens to feel comfortable and that's that's the only point I'm trying to make was that ever discussed was that language ever discussed to be removed I'm sorry one more time information of the council did Did you all discuss that as part of the review committee? Yes, and I think what Chief Oskis is saying, appointed subject to approval of city council. So when he talks about hiring, it is with the approval of the city council. And I think what he's bringing up is the opposite is that also with the approval of the city council. No, what I'm asking is, as a matter of the charter, regardless of it being the police chief or any other director, was there ever discussion about removing that from the existing charter language. There was not. At the meeting at Saffen Baptist Church, there was discussion about if four can hire five can fire. That is correct, and that language was removed. So we did use it. That was for the city manager. That was for the city manager. And I'm not talking about that in the charter, if it says that by confirmation of the council,

[4:06:28] in the council really we don't want involved the hiring and firing process, why was that not a part of the charter review as a proposition to remove that language? Basically, and any right now in the charter, any directive point of mind in the current charter is by consent of the council, and that isn't the charter at this point. So I guess that's the question then, was that ever discussed, you know, does that have to be still not? It was not discussed to the degree that you're bringing it to my attention. that's why it was never presented it you know the only time that we ever discussed it was the super majority for you know in years and that was removed and the discussion of it should be handled the same as the fire chief yes chief of fire chief what we said was this police I mean this this position would be treated the same as you know the police department I mean the fire and all of the directors so follow them to the same person that if it passes you follow them certain and I totally understand that the point I'm making is is the city manager should be able to hire and fire and should not need confirmation of council and that's not anything against any member of this council this is future this is other positions so we're working on a charter well then let's remove that and give that authority to the city manager as As we've all, I've heard every one of you say you wanted to do, let's eliminate that subject to approval of City Council in the charter altogether. I don't, I'm surprised it wasn't discussed because I don't know of any other city that word that language would remain where it was actual a possibility of happening. I kind of agree with Charlotte. I don't I don't think he needs that much power and I know back in the early 40s It was the council and the mayor that had all the power and that didn't work I think that's I think that's a pretty good thing that gives you the city manager and the city council mayor

[4:08:31] But I'll only answer to you guys as well. Yeah, right if I make a secret decision That's that's where your power comes your power comes that you hire and fire him and my fear is that you know And I think by having the confirmation put at the council's feet that if I was politically savvy and I wanted to get this job, I might come and every one of you and try to get you to confirm me or do whatever I need you to do. I think that the city manager is a professional position, educated, we pay him a good salary to make those kinds of decisions and you have the authority to hire him or her, but the city manager should have that authority and this subject to approval of city council, whether it's me or other department heads, does not allow him to do that. Anybody want to remove subject to approval of city council? No. Yeah. Well, we're still doing this. I would only, I mean, for the purpose of the entire charter, not just this one proposition. I would not be in favor of your moving. I would need that. So John? My name is John Barrio, and just as a common citizen today, as with any management of a corporation, it's good to have two echelons of protection in any personnel structure. The appointment by the city manager an individual incompetent or maybe partial that needs to have a committee, the council, to verify that appointment is pure is good business practice. It is not as much intended, I'll do respect him, it's not as much intended to politicize it as to make sure that the best

[4:10:36] person is put in. If a city manager, and I'll do respect to you, Daniel, were to bring in a crony, this would be our only opportunity as a city to stop that sort of action. To give the city manager sole discretion on that is basically giving him total control of the city. As a citizen, I favor the second check-in balance and I would defer to our legal department to chime in as to what our sister cities do in this. Let me add something though. Any heart that I make as a city manager will never be just me by myself. I've always truly believed that I do everything by committee. Any time I interview a director it's gonna be by committee. I'm gonna have the trusted directors in there as well and you know we discuss those the interviewees and we make a decision as a committee has a group moving forward it's not just city manager saying you know what I think I like this individual I'm bringing somebody with me it doesn't work that way we want to hire the best we possibly can yes so we do everything by committee Daniel don't take it personal oh no no I'm not taking it personally I'm just saying I just want to make sure that if he let's Teresa answer this is that is not professional city management what you've just described it's it's it's one it's accountability there, we'll go ahead. Because it wasn't an issue that the charter committee was considering, I don't believe we have the sister city information about all the cities, I can speak to one city where most of the directors are not appointed by council, but the chief of police and the fire chief are. It's not TCMA practice, it's not ICMA practice, it's he's the head of the corporation, he's the CEO and he's responsible, but that makes him vulnerable to us if he does something inappropriate, and that's the system that he understands. And I personally, through observation, see that this system, with the City Council, having

[4:12:37] an endorsement provision, basically makes a choice of the City Director not a fireable offense but a moderated action. In that way, I feel it's very favorable. Thank you. Thank you, John. I believe the consensus is, if I counted right, that it stays just like it is. What's next? That means we threw with this one, isn't it? Trinidad, thank you and the committee, homeheartedly. Did a good job, buddy. Okay, we are up to F. First public hearing and consideration replacing Article 1104 solid waste of the Code of Ordinances in entirety. Mr. Kelton. New me to hold it for you. Yes, I'll be back far enough, I can see it. So, real quick, this afternoon, we want to with the new solid waste services that just went into effect July 20th, we want to update the ordinance to kind of reflect the new services that are out there. What we're asking to do today is the existing section 11.04 remove it in its entirety and then

[4:14:39] replace a new one 11.04 with the proposed revisions that we presented in your background. The biggest changes that, well, really, the biggest change that anybody's going to see or notice is just how what we're doing to align with the new contracts and the new services that are provided and to address just the things, currently just to address the things that have been brought to our attention, that there are definite concerns out there that didn't need to be addressed. This is going to be a lot shorter, a lot simpler ordinance than what we've had in the past. And it's going to be for the most part of kind of a very brief version of what we're doing. And as we move forward, and as we get better at our new processes and we kind of determine, we have a chance to evaluate and determine what's going on. Out in the community, you know, there may be times in the future that we want to bring some changes back to you, but for right now, we just want to leave it very brief and to better our line ourselves with our new contracts. Some of the things that have the most effect on the citizens will be for the placement of the carts as far as the timing is going, is there to put the carts out no earlier than the day before, the evening before collection, and no later than 7 a.m. the day of collection. The retrieval of the residential containers, we've left this fairly based on all my research of all the other ordinances that are out there. We're being fairly liberal with this one to allow them to not have to retrieve them until noon the day after, the day after, pick up again. We may want to bring this back later and refine it a little better in the future as we kind of see what's going on out in the community, but we want to leave it fairly liberal at this

[4:16:42] time based on what we've seen in other communities. Storage locations for residential and non-residential containers, and this is basically for the residential side, we want to, you know, one of the biggest things that we've heard so far is people leaving them out on the streets. We wanna make sure that people aren't leaving their carts in the streets. We wanna make sure that we get their carts back up off the streets for safety and parking and all the other issues that go along with it too. But for storage, inside garage is carports or other parking structures or outside of that structure and it's immediate vicinity. We wanna, again, it's not gonna necessarily be a one size fits all, but we want to have some guidance as far as placement and where we'd like to see those moving forward. Again, after we see exactly what goes on, after we kind of get all the kinks worked out and we really get familiar with this, we may want to tweak this sum, but right now we think this is a really good starting point for us. Custodial responsibilities, this is one thing for not only residential, but non-residential containers that we really want to address. I know Ms. Farmer, we've started addressing some of this earlier. It was somewhat spelled out in our old ordinates, but not to this degree, but it's basically to keep all containers securely closed and ensure the collection site is kept in a neat and clean and orderly manner. That way we don't want people just piling trash around them, or if there's loose blowing debris, we don't want it overflowing, and that goes not only for residential containers, but also for commercial containers as well too. So, and those are the biggest changes that are out there that affects the citizens right now. It's one thing we do have in the ordinance that is a little bit different, does allow the solid waste administrator, which at this point is me, the authority to review and approve variances

[4:18:49] to that section. So if there is something that at a house or residence, something that just, it flat won't work with how we have it in this ordinance that I can allow that person to vary from what we say as far as if there is no garage, if there is no carport, then you can't put one adjacent to it. So what are we going to do? So it's one of those things like that we don't want, we don't want to be out there trying to issue somebody a citation if some of these conditions don't exist. So again, right now we want to be, we want to align with our new contracts and we want to make sure that we're, everybody's on the same page and we're all moving forward in the same direction. But again, we don't want to be too restrictive or too heavy-fisted in trying to move forward with these, with the new contracts. Shonk, from the new service. As of you, this is a housekeeping to bring our current ordinance into line with our new contract, which we have been working on. And then again, I would like to ask if this is approved today, if you could provide me with some handouts of this for Thursday evenings of town hall meeting. And with that, I'll move to approve. I'll second. I have further discussion. Go ahead. I think the criticism of the new service that I've received the most of has to do with the cans being left outside, on the street, falling over in the yard. And I think, I think it's like anything we're all getting used to a new service. In my immediate neighborhood, we've had the blue cans. So we have two cans now and they're different colors, but we've been moving cans in and out. But for whatever reason, the two cans seem to all of a sudden have increased our concern about this twofold. I really wish the cans would not have to stay

[4:20:49] out as long, but I guess that the night before or 7 a.m., if you have roughly 24 hours to put the can up, I think that's good. I think that anything more than that might be too difficult. I think this is also kind of an area where we need to be good neighbors and if we see that our neighbor doesn't have their can put up, go put their can up. I mean if they're out of town at a meeting we're forgetting sort of neighborly behavior and that's bothering me because we used to do things for each other and as I said sometimes whether someone left town or did that the can's going to be out there and we don't want it. I think that right now another criticism is it's taken the pickup service until after five o'clock, both times in my neighborhood, to pick up the trash. I would imagine that they'll become much more efficient when they see what they're dealing with and we won't put cans out the night before and wait almost 24 hours for the pickup. So I would just hope that you will watch that because I don't find that acceptable if we We have to have it at the curb at 7 a.m. that it's not picked up till 5 or 6. Other than that, I believe that we've got to support this and we've got to encourage people to get used to the new service and be recycling more than what they want to and I'm concerned about that because of the cost to all of us if we don't start doing that. So just bear with us, I'm going to ask you a lot of questions as time goes on that I get hit with, that I can answer right away. That will be fine. We're more than happy to answer them. And again, I think as we go on and it's not only a learning curve for, for the public themselves, there's still a learning curve out in the citizenry itself to make sure that the cart placements are correct and that we're, you know, making sure the carts are turned

[4:22:53] the right direction, things like that. I think once we get through all those things, I think this process, it's already our call volumes have already started increasing in my office. And I think as we move along, I think just every week it's going to get better and better, we're going to get faster and faster at it. And again too, we want to educate and communicate and run all those traps to make sure that everybody really understands and has a good understanding of where we are where we're going, and why, and we can, I think it is, I think it's going to get, every day is going to get better. One thing I don't understand though, is using that automated truck, there's so many cars parked now on our streets, I'm not really sure how that one man in a truck or one person in a truck can reach over and get that can when there's so many vehicles. So I don't see them being able to actually move down the curb on the streets in my neighborhood. There are certain neighborhoods that we are- I mean, just getting out and getting it in anyway. Yes, they're having some issues. They're having to get out mainly, mainly manipulate the cart to get it in position where they can do it without hitting a vehicle or another obstacle. Again, those are education components that we can work with, with citizens in groups. And there are going to be certain areas of town that are probably going to pose great greater problems than others. And again, we're just gonna have to work through those. And from a staff's perspective, we're here to help with people find solutions. I've worked with some other, I've worked with a couple of people in your neighborhood already about parking conditions. They don't have a garage, they don't have a driveway. The only place they can park is right there in front of their house on the streets, which takes up their entire house or their entire lot. And so we worked with some solutions for those people to find an alternative area for them to place the carts, which actually turned out to work out a whole lot better for them because they're situation

[4:24:54] than actually putting it on the curb. So again, we're willing to work with people and help find solutions when we have difficult situations like that and try to find alternative methods to make the system work. And then for those that have a physical disability or simply don't have the strength anymore to move the cart, you're working with them. Yes, we have that place and we don't have to go to the doctor as long as their doctor will provide is that right provide some sort of we just need a signature to verify that they have a disability of some form that does not allow them to have the cart. So that doesn't mean they have to go to the doctor that could fax to your office. It could be if they fax it to their doctor and the doctor signs it it and fax it back to us. That's fine. We just need some verification from a doctor that states that they have a disability that doesn't allow them to actually physically manipulate the cart. And at that point, and so far, we've 250, 300 people have signed up for that program. And so as we're doing it, we're, you know, republics going along, they're placing stickers on the carts. We're making sure that all the drivers have the addresses. And we've had, you know, there's been, there's been a couple of misses a time or two. And so with those folks, because the driver didn't see the cart, he didn't see it up next to the house. And so we're, but they call us and we're working with those people and, you know, getting out there and making sure that the driver knows exactly where the carts are and how it's working within on each individual basis, if we have an issue. Last question, does the Republic have commercial recycling containers? Yes, they do. Okay. That was a question that I've been asked.

[4:26:55] Most of that has been made that we accept this as presented, has been seconded, yes. There's a public hearing requirement on this item. I thought it called for it. Okay, it is just public hearing. So we're just bringing it to us. I would like to. It is. So this is the first reading in a, but if you need to ask for public comment. So before you ask for public comment. I have one more comment. Since July 20th, my phone and text messages have been a real busy little bee as Shane and city manager can attest to. But I want to say to the public out there, Republic has been, Republic Services has been outstanding in answering every one of those phone calls and Shane, your office has been outstanding in handling every one of those and some of them were misunderstanding, some of them were mistrust, but I can tell you that the folks that have called 99% have been very pleased with the response from your department and from republic and I truly appreciate that from my standpoint. I want to say thank you, you've really been busy, not just me, you've really been busy since July 20th, but I firmly believe that the system will work if we all give it time and as I explained to one constituent, she wasn't about to recycle and I explained to her that I didn't think that I would have any recycling at all. And I can attest that my recycle bin in my own pantry two cans and it, my recycle to take out to the blue can fills up so much faster and it's nothing but saving the planet and we've all got to do our part. So teaching neighbors or teaching relatives or siblings or whatever to crush down that cereal box or wash out that can of corn is an easy job. It's an easy job. Thank you. Do we have public comment on this? This is a public hearing. Once again I'm still John Barrio.

[4:28:57] have not changed identities this last time I was up here. My primary concern are the phone calls that I too am getting though I don't stand here as a public official but because I do sit on a board people talk to me and some things were presented to me that I'm merely passing to you. The first is that there is a website hosted by the Texas Department of Transportation specifically talking about bicycles, pedestrians, and the law. And if I can just take a moment to quote, it is legal to place a recycling container, trash container. I'm sorry, is it legal to place a, this is very small print, so bear with me. Is it legal to place a recycling container, trash container, or other objects in a bike lane? They don't specifically return an answer for bike lanes. broadened it to all transportation lanes. And this is quoting state law. A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, entrance or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access for any or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles or conveyances, regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from the acts of others. If further goes on to say, obstruct means to render impassable or render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous. An offense is a Class B misdemeanor. The maximum fine is $2,000 or 180 days in jail or both. Texas Penal Code 42.03 Specifically, I traveled 19th Street regularly

[4:31:04] in my daily commute. It has no shoulder, it has no parking lane, it has no bicycle lane, it has no sidewalks. but right up against the curb and trash cans have been or trash receptacles whatever we're calling these carts are placed in the outside lanes of the roadway in direct violation of state law if we look at that all over the city thousands of instances that's a whole lot of fine money the state could collect changing our ordinances and change that at all. Specifically, the law itself does is virtually quoted there or repeated there. Seems like changing this ordinance doesn't do that. Our old ordinance, let's say, again bear with me, I was given so many papers, it's almost pathetic. Okay, our old ordinance is that one. Okay, the old ordinance and chain did not specifically mention this, but it says placement of containers for residential collection. This is a section that is completely omitted from the revised ordinance. It shall be the duty of each customer of residential premises in the city to place garbage and trash cans at locations as follows, premises on alleys. If The premises from which garbage and trash are to be collected or adjacent to a dedicated public alley, the customer shall place all containers adjacent to the alley at a location on the premises and easily accessible to the collector from outside the premises. Other premises. In the event there is no alley adjacent to the premises, customer shall place all containers

[4:33:06] for collection at curbside on the street on which said premises is addressed. And then it goes on to designated collection point and time of placement. It seems that the contract for the new trash collection service, when written, was in violation of City Ordinance, and that now we're going back and changing the ordinance to accommodate what the public is perceiving from the phone calls I've gotten. was clean up to push this through without having had public hearing and comment and all that first. It just seems to them to be the cart before the horse. The contract was signed, possibly without ordinances and state law compliance. And then now we're coming back and trying to get the ordinance changed to make up for a contract that was pushed through. I'm merely repeating what others would say and I would like for you all to keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have further comment on this item? Oh, Rhett. The next item on our list is an update on the two public vote ram and proof of projects at Lake Nastwermi. You didn't take action on that item. You still need to vote. I thought you said it was just public hearing. Now you want to vote. Well, yeah, I know his first, his first, his first, I'm sorry, my mistake. I was the motion was made and I was going to call for it. And then somebody said it's just public hearing. So, it's birthday week, birthday week. Okay, I do have a motion that we approve it as presented. I do have a second. He's going to be 65 folks. Council, is there anything else we need to talk about public comment? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay put a 5-0 on that one. Gotcha. So another senior moment. I've already read

[4:35:10] item G. this is requested by Fleming. Okay. Okay. He just wanted the public to know about it. Two public improvement projects like Nazworthy Park Gold. I'm not Carl White, but I'm not Carl White, that's sorry, Charlotte. Carl wears a tie every time he shows up to his presentation. It's 103. We're just going to give you a quick summary on two projects. We're working on, there are two projects out at like NAS worthy that are boat ramps. One is at Middle Concho Park. That project consists of a variety of things from the boat ramp to lighting in some new restroom facilities. That particular project, we were awarded a grant from the Texas Parks and Wildlife due to some shortages of staff and other things at the state. We have still not received the paperwork on that grant, so we're waiting for the state to follow through. They tell us that they're close to that, but that's kind of where we are. So that particular project is anticipated to cost 471,117 of that is the match that the city brought forward and that was all brought to council before we applied to before the grant and so forth so that project is moving along and we hope will happen soon but it's kind of right now in the hold up concerning the grant. The next one is Fring Creek Park. Here we're doing some improvements to the main boat ramp as well. You'll see that the new ramp and some parking spaces. The anticipated cost is $125,000. Part of this, of course, is coming from the Lake Nazworthy or the majority of it is coming from the Lake Nazworthy Fund that Council approved and $15 is coming from the Convention and Visitors Bureau.

[4:37:11] That project is under the design right now. In fact, yesterday we got that design work back from SKG. And so that project is now in the purchasing department as far as being in the process of going out for bids. So the goal there with this project of course is to have it up and running before the boat races for 2016. So that's kind of it in a nutshell, but we wanted to give the public an update on those two projects. Council comment on this? Thank you. Public comment on this? Thank you, Carl. Number H has been pulled. I think Bill Riley pulled number H. That's what Brian told me. Number H has been pulled. I, we have already taken care of. Jay, we have taken care of. K is mine. And I'm going to pull it. I wanted it the first of the next agenda because I want to full council want to discuss this. So I'd like to pull K and put it at the first of the next agenda. Sorry, Bill, I know you've been waiting around for that all day. That leaves us number L, which is discussion in possible direction related to the new water connection process. This is Morys and Bill Riley. Thank you, Mory. If I requested this, it means a long ago. We were actually thinking Mr. Fleming had requested that. He had the concern about the connection. Let's just pull that and put it on with mine next so that we can discuss them with our member. Okay, that's good. So let's pull that one as well. Thanks, Marty. You did well. Consideration of and possible action on matters discussed in executive closed session, if needed, there is nothing we need to discuss, everything is, there's nothing that needs to be voted on. Consideration of approving various board nominations, one, downtown development commission, Brenda Gunner to an unexpired term. I do have a move to approve by Charlotte. Give me a second somebody.

[4:39:16] Second. Do I have a second from Lucy? Any Council discussion on Brenda? Public comment on Brenda? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Put a 5-0 on Mad 1. Announcements, consideration, future agenda. Start with you Liz. Mayor, I have nothing today. Lucy. Nothing. Charlotte. Wow. I didn't want to say that I then you know I appreciate the typed copy in our Friday packets of future agenda items because I did notice there were some duplications and some things I'd requested her rod you know it gives me the opportunity nobody else wants it that's fine just put it in there for me but I can see it and read it much better than on the computer so I do thank you And I have nothing. Marty. And all I want is a motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Meetings over.

Transcribed 2026-07-27 with faster-whisper (base.en) · source: youtube.com/watch?v=DDxwC7CFWQc