San Angelo City Council 1-5-16

[0:00:03] Let's go ahead and get started. We know she's on the way, so maybe of the time we get to the recognition she'll be here. Welcome. To our meeting this morning, and it is great to be alive and well in San Angelo, Texas. We're glad to have you here this morning. We will begin our meeting this morning with prayer. I'll ask Lance Overstreet. He's an engineering department city of San Angelo to come forward and lead us in the prayer. Stand as you are able, please. Let's take this time of the first council of 2016 to just offer up a prayer. Let's bow. Don't let Father, we just thank You for this great opportunity we have today. Lord, we thank You that You have blessed this city, and You have blessed this council over 2015. And Lord, we also ask that You will do the same in 2016. Lord, we ask that You bless our council members, that You give them guidance, that You give them direction and discernment as they lead our city in 2016. We also ask Lord that You just continue to bless our city as You have in the past, that You bless our state, and You bless our nation. We will give You the glory of the praise, Amen. Aina, come help me with the pledge, please. Dana Winters, KLST will help us with our pledge. Honors, the Texas, Texas, one state under God, one, and indivisible. Thank you. Where's Brian? We're Brian.

[0:02:05] I believe our timing was perfect. Megan just made it. That's fine. We have a very important recognition to make this morning, and I want to ask Christian Alvarado, Chris Burney, and Megan Cantrell to please come to the front. And I will also ask the family of native Roberts to please come to the front. If y'all would come up here, I have a recognition to read. I'm gonna tell you what, if this recognition doesn't make you glad to live in San Angelou, Texas, I don't know what will. I didn't here to be fine. A trio of young people in our community earlier this year selfishly rushed to the rescue of an older lady whose car was swept away by flood waters that very well could have claimed her life. Today, we honor the heroism of Christian Avarado, Chris Bernie, and Megan Cantrell. Late on the 9th of May 18th, maybe Roberts got caught in a fierce thunderstorm while driving to the airport to pick up a friend. With visibility reduced to almost zero, she turned around and headed back home forgetting about a low water crossing on southwest Boulevard. Raging floodwater swept her car off the roadway, lodging it on a cement ledge, witnessing this from the nearby McDonald's restaurant where they work, Christian, Chris, and Megan instinctively rushed to hell. The force of the water initially kept you in from opening the car's door, and they were unsuccessful in breaking a window. Finally, with Ms. Roberts also pushing from the inside, they managed to open the door and pulled a 75-year-old woman to safety. Within minutes, the rising waters had completely submerged her car. Ms. Roberts' family feels certain she wouldn't be here today, if not for the bravery, and the quick action of these three young citizens. And therefore, I, Dwayne Morrison, mayor of the city of St. Angel, on behalf of the city council, we'll be here by recognizing and applaud Christian Alvarado, Chris Bernie, Megan Cantrell, for their heroism and positive determination to make a difference in our community. And you three come up here,

[0:04:18] and I'll give one of y'all the microphone, or all three of you the microphone. Go ahead and make your speech. What's it say? I don't need a microphone, I gotta love them now. Oh, okay, okay. Pretty much it was one of those things you just split second decision. My mom being the manager that night freaking out. One of us or all three of us or all four of us could have died that night, but as one of those things we'd rather die trying than watch somebody die and not try. So I'm just thankful that we could be there to help her out that night. family. Does anyone wish to say a few words? I thank the mayor and the council for allowing this to happen. This has been a long time in coming. I also want to thank Fred Barnett for his willingness to always speak with me and answer my emails. He was very instrumental in having this take place. Me a hero is a a person who does an ordinary act at an ordinary, performing an ordinary task in extra ordinary circumstances. This is what they did. I'm forever grateful. My family is grateful. We applaud you and we are just very happy that you were able to do what you did. Because of I believe my mother is here today.

[0:06:59] And our next recognition, our proclamation, is for our school board recognition month. I see a whole bunch of school board people out there. Y'all come up and let me read this and hand you a proclamation. The mission of public schools is to meet the diverse educational needs of all children and to empower them to become competent, productive contributors to a democratic society in an ever-changing world. Local school board members are committed to children to believe all children can be successful long-life learners and that the best education is tailored to the individual needs of each child. Local school board members work closely with parents. Educational professionals and other community members create the educational vision we want for our children. Local school board members are responsible for ensuring the structure that provides a solid foundation for our school system. Local school board members are strong advocates for public education and are responsible for communicating the needs of the school district to the public and the public's expectations to the district. Now, therefore, I, Duane Morrison, the Mayor of the City of San Angelo, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby declare our appreciation to the members of the San Angelo Independent School Board and proclaim the month of January 216 as School Board Recognition Month in San Angelo and urge all citizens to join us in recognizing the dedication and hard work of local school board members and in working with them to mold an education system that needs the needs of both today and tomorrow's children. I bet you boys make a speech now. There won't be much of a speech, but I would like to recognize some of our team that's here. And I'll start with the ladies first. So Stephanie and Faragomez, Stephanie Free and Faragomez are our directors of schools, executive directors of schools. And then Jamie Highsmith is our Director of Public Information, and the most important

[0:08:59] person to me is our board secretary, March attorney, so stand up, Martin, say hello to everybody. And then we also have our superintendent, Dr. Carl Detloff, he's here, and in addition to that, we have Jeff Bright, who's our assistant superintendent. Matt Kimble is another one of our assistant superintendents. And last but not least, we have Steve Gill with us, and he's one of our executive directors of school. And we thank you, Mayor, for recognizing us. It's a, it's a pleasure to see you honor young people as you did earlier. I don't know where those young people went to school, but we get to deal with, have the honor and privilege of working with 15,000 students on a regular basis. And to me, there's no greater, no greater task than for us to take care of the children of our community. And we get to deal with young people like that on a daily basis. So, thanks, Mayor. We appreciate it very much. I'm sorry I didn't recognize Max, and Max does all the dirty work because I travel a lot. This is Max Parker and he's vice president of our board. Let's get a picture. The council is good to see y'all this morning, I'm glad to see that you made it through 2015 and now we're ready to start over again in 216. We are missing one member of our council this morning in that Charlotte farmer and she is at the 11th annual Texas transportation forum in Austin and she is there as a representative of the ports to Plains coalition which St. Angelo is a very strong member of so we miss Charlotte

[0:11:05] but she's she's out doing her she's out doing her job. It is now time for the public comments section of our agenda. This is when you're allowed to come forward and make make comments to the city council, anything, be it pro or con, let me read the legal, legalese, and then we will form a line right here at the front and give you an opportunity up to five minutes to make your statements. Issues or items that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time. Citizens should speak from the podium, again by stating their name and let me remarks to less than five minutes. Council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future item. The council takes public comment on all regular items during the discussion of those items. So I would ask you please if you wish to approach and speak to the city council, this is your opportunity, form a line at the front. They can call, last call, form a line at the front. Being no public comment then I will go to the council for the things that they wish to speak or if there is anything on the consent agenda that we wish to pull in place on the regular agenda. This will be the opportunity. Start with you, Mr. Ryan, staff. Yes, Mayor, I have three things to pull from consent agenda. The first two are real simple, and I just have a question of staff. That would be B and C. And then we have a citizen who would like, I know, to speak on the item M, former councilman, I think Paul Alexander is here to do that. So that might be a little bit more involved. Other than that, I have a neighborhood chat plan for January 11th at 6 p.m. at St. Paul Presbyterian Church. So for Paul and the other four that showed up December during the Santa Rita Christmas lighting event,

[0:13:05] please welcome back and come in January and we will have a fun exercise that Councilwoman Lucy Gonzalez is going to help me with. And so again, neighborhood chat January 11th, six p.m. at St. Paul Presbyterian. Okay, and you have pulled item B, item C, and item M. M. Okay, and it's got M mine. M. M. Lucy? Hi, nothing, sir. I just want to wish everyone a Happy New Year. Mr. Dunney. Good morning. I also wish everyone a new year, a Happy New Year. I did get a couple of phone calls over the weekend. And I think I've heard some of conversation before on the train coming through town. And I did have a couple of calls and I just wanted to, I'm just the messenger, but one lady was really irritated about the fact that it was around three or four o'clock in the morning that the train honked its horns. She counted 21 times. So again, I'm just getting the word out that there's some frustrated people out there, and we understand that it's a safety issue. We understand that, and they have to come to the town. They have to let people know they're coming, but at those hours of the day, it's kind of irritating to them, so I just wanted to get that out. Let everyone know, okay? You all right with this agenda? I'm fine with this agenda. Marty? I wanted to pull in, but it's been pulled. Anything else, sir? No, thank you. Mr. Rodney? Nothing else. Okay. Then I will ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda. that would be items A, B, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, A, L. I will move to approve the agenda minus those items, pulling those items. Okay. Do we have a second? Johnny and Marty, do I have any further council consideration on this before we vote? Do I have anything from the public on this before call for the vote?

[0:15:08] Okay, motion has been made. has been seconded that we accept the consent agenda with the exception of items BC and M. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Put a 6-0 on it please Brian. Okay item number B is consider adopting a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute an inter-local agreement with the Tom Green County providing for mental health unit M.H.U. services, making provisions for city participation in the cost associated with the M.H.U. not to exceed $160 per year for fiscal year 215.16 to finding a public purpose and benefit. Chief, would you like to ask your question, please? And I think if you're agreeable, we could take B&C together. I wanted to see the Chief Clean Shaven up here today, so for this morning, thank you for approaching. This used to be something that was done in the regular budget cycle, and I'm wondering why it's taken until January to be brought before us. There was an increase to the amount that was needed from our part, and that's why we're bringing it now. It was something also that was not approved during budget session. I don't remember it not being approved. You know what it is for though, right? I don't need to explain what it's for. The additional money was not part of the approved budget, and so we worked with the police department and the county to the final amount that is being approved or proposed today is dramatically less than the increase which was proposed by the county. And we worked with, I think they worked with the sheriff's office and we worked with the county judge to determine what we thought was a good compromise and that's what's proposed today. But that increase above was what was not approved.

[0:17:10] We were ready to do if it was the same amount of the previous year, okay. You want to read C and put them both together? Yes, sir. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute and enter local agreement Tom Green County providing for the crisis intervention unit. CIU services make provisions for city participation in the cost associated with the CIU not to exceed $40,361. fiscal year to 1516 and find a public purpose and benefit. My issue is, of course, the county has the same budget schedule that we do and need an answer in the same time frame that we do. So I would just hope in the future that we could see this and act on it in a more timely fashion. I'm not sure when the increase, I think the increase was proposed before, but we would just stay flat and had to look at at the increases of over the amount that was approved last year. That's not having that in our budget. That's when we worked with finance. Okay motion to approve. We certainly don't want to lose this is very important for our community. Do I have a motion to approve by Elizabeth? I do have a second by Rodney. Do I have any further comments from the Council? Do I have any comments from public on this issue? These two items before we vote. If not then, I will ask that all that is in favor of approving items B and C as presented and seconded. Please say aye. Aye. Anyone oppose nay? Put a 6-0 on that one please, Brian. M is the second reading and consider adopting an ordinance amending chapter 10 traffic control article 1003, operation of motor vehicles of the Code of Ordinance of the City of St. Angelo, Texas by adding division 6, use of wireless communication devices, providing providing for a penalty, providing for severe ability, and providing for an effective date. I suppose Jeff Fant, I've got you down here drawing the short straw, Elizabeth?

[0:19:11] I don't have any real questions since the last meeting. I think it's still an important project for us to pursue, and it's been actually going on now for several years. But I do know that there are some citizens that would like to speak to it, and I think there still is some confusion, even though it's been well covered in the media. I think there's still confusion by some citizens as exactly what operations are allowed and what are not allowed. Right. I'm certainly entertaining here. Mostly I'm here to answer any questions that anybody has on the on the ordinance, but basically handheld devices or wireless communication devices, cell phones, PDAs, anything like that, is will be against city ordinance or be a violation of city ordinance. What is allowed, that is with texting, using the apps or things like that. What will be allowed is essentially during an emergency communication, whether it's with a police or to relay emergency information to emergency personnel or something like that. That is going to be allowed. Using it as a navigation device is allowed. using it to answer or dial for a telephone call is still allowed at this point in time. So in a nutshell, that's exactly what will be done. We will be putting out as soon as this is approved or it should this be approved. We will actually be putting out some pressures and leases and things like that to actually indicate a little bit more layman's terms as to what is allowed and what is not allowed with the new texting ordinance. and I gave you a bad time after the council meeting last month about signage because you said there was no fiscal impact on us passing this, but we will put up signage right. Yes ma'am, I guess I smoked incorrectly as far as there's no impact, a fiscal impact on that, but yes, there will be some signage that will be required.

[0:21:12] I'm not exactly sure myself exactly what will be required, but I'm assuming that we will be putting up some signage and things like that as you enter the city and maybe perhaps throughout the city here in different locations to let the public know that the texting is prohibited within the city limits while you're driving your motor vehicle in a public roadway. We actually have about 12 different entrances that we'd be looking at putting the signs up and really the cost is around $4,500. That's what we're looking at at this point. That's all I have. I have a question. Now, you can make a call but does it have to be on a hands-free device? It's free devices are exempt from this ordinance, but the way I'm understanding the ordinance, the way it reads there, Theresa might be able to clarify a little bit better than I am, but dialing or receiving a phone call, a telephone call, and talking on the phone is still allowed. And manipulation of applications. I have further comments from the council on this Then we'll open it up the public comment morning, Paul morning Paul Alexander immediate past Council member for SMD one I've been watching the progress on this ordinance and I have opinions about it. So I've emailed most of you or all of you in early November saying hey, there's there's some data here I don't see being considered And as the law, as ordinance is written, is not the question that collisions could increase in San Angelo as a result of this ordinance, as it's written.

[0:23:14] It's not a simple text that causes problems than this ban texting. There is no question that texting makes people drive erratically. That's not what we're arguing here. That's proven. is not proven is the hypothesis that we're moving, say in a law you cannot text with result in less collisions. And it's kind of surprising the results. There's about 13 studies out there and I finally ran into a state farm, helped, and there's some other groups. I got to read these, these others. But they helped put together a peer review study of all these 13 other studies that kind of put it to you more black and white. And I just posted that on the St. Angel of connection last night, and again this morning, it's confusing. So what studies do we listen to? And they're unbiased, and they say, well, this is not a really tough ordinance. You're going to end up with more collisions, probably. Tough ordinance means no mobile devices at all. I think that's what San Antonio has. No phone calls, nothing. That's when you get results, because then law enforcement can enforce that. Right now, they're going to have a difficult time in forcing. Charlotte was talking about it. I mean, this is not enforceable. I think it's enforceable, you know, kind of a great, it's enforceable. Not practically, though. It's very difficult to find out. Is somebody using a mobile device, or are they using a GPS? Because if you're on GPS, tell me if I'm wrong, but you can look up a business. So you've got to text in the business name on your GPS app, and that's still composing something there, and it still looks like texting, but it's not, it's on a GPS app. So it's difficult. I think that I can just put my GPS app on the bottom. I get pulled over, I just open my GPS app up, because that's what I was using, I'll just tell them. So it's difficult to prove that I wasn't on my GPS app. So there are some states that say, well, you can't even put it in if you're using a GPS app. You cannot compose any text. I think that's Southern California, and that'd be a good idea to look at that. So I'm making suggestions of where we could improve this, because I wanted it to be enforceable.

[0:25:15] So, are you sure I'm going through this? You would think, though, if you even had the most strict laws in great enforcement, that you'd have a tremendous decrease in collisions, but even that is not apparent. It's really at the very, very best, 11% decrease, and that was on one study. It's more like a 3%, 5%. It's not very defined. So these experts are grappling with this. It is not a simple matter of an opinion in texting as bad as this bandit. It's much more difficult to figure out, and that's what these guys are doing. And so I think we've got to look at the data, really do you think we should be looking at the data, and we're not really looking at it that I can see. Why are they having more wrecks if there's these bands? Well, they're using their phones far less. They implement these bands, the use of phones and mobile devices goes way down. But the ones that architects team are putting it down low, which increases their collision rates by four times. So they're getting in wrecks. And the end result is there's about the same amount of rec sometimes more, sometimes less. And I think that's what we need to be looking at here. And I have some suggestions to make this a better ordinance. Maybe actually make this thing helpful for our citizens to make it more safe. My suggestion, as I really, really think this out, is this ordinance has written, I receive a text from my wife, are you on your way home? I can't ever answer it, yes or no. And there's a auto answer in these phones. So I can see the text come in. My truck can even tell me, and Ford F-150, if you update the software in the sink, it'll even voice out what the text was. On this phone, I could just open the text, and yes, send, it's gone. My suggestion is that if a person has stopped at a traffic light, allow them not to compose text, but to auto compose text, and there's a difference here. It's just simple, bam, bam, bam, it's off.

[0:27:16] Answer the question, yes, or no, I don't want to be given a ticket and from yes to my wife on my way home, when it's really not a dangerous thing, we're going to stop at a traffic light. So I would look at, and some laws do this, they look at, when a driver stopped, can they compose any text? I would say not necessarily compose, but I don't know how the word that. Simple answer, simple stuff. I don't think it should be illegal. But also, this is another bit of information. Drivers about 45 years, there's a net number in there, or older, whether there's a law or not, it doesn't change their outcome on collisions. It's the drivers around 21 to 45 that have the biggest impact with these laws. The younger drivers, they don't listen anyway. Their decrease went down 3% on usage of cell phones with these laws. So the bigger impacts of the younger to middle-aged people, I would give them a chance to make short replies, things like that, or you'll have them doing it when they're driving, and that is proven so far that I can see it's proven much more dangerous. So that's the stuff to look at. I would consider small changes to this ordinance at least, but don't expect big, positive results here. And I've been looking at this. I really have put my time in this. This one study, I've posted it, I'll give it to you guys. It is the comprehensive one that I think we should be looking at. Thank you, Paul. Any questions, anything? Because I don't think this is about seat belt laws. I don't think it's about rights or anything like that. Seat belt laws don't affect other people so much. This is about public safety in the final outcome. Thank you. I've told my wife that if I text her and she hears the phone being she needs to put on her right blinker lat, pull to the side of the road to the curb, stop, put the car in park, then she can answer my text

[0:29:18] legally. I think that's the way to handle that problem. Do I have further public comment? I'm at Mr. Mayer and David Nellen. I can appreciate what Mr. Alexander has to say, but that's almost more complicated than we started out with. I do think we need a law or an ordinance to prevent texting and cell phone use. And I'll give you an example, and I hope I don't get a ticket for this, but I accidentally ran a red light the other day, just a quick looking at my phone because it's business. I'm thinking what's going on, and I went right through the red light. And that opened my eyes. I said, I'm not going to do that anymore. There's a lot of us that, and I think most people don't agree with me, if it's a law, an ordinance that we not text and we not use our cell phones when we drive. I think we'll obey that just because that's the law. We don't have to get caught or get a ticket to make that happen. We just realize that's the right thing to do. And I believe that we need that ordinance. I don't enough the details of it. I trust you along, do a good job at that. But we do need that ordinance. Thank you, sir. Further public comment? Morning, my name's Bill Ware. I have a problem with the exemptions. More specifically, the police officer, because our department and ambulance, they have two people in their vehicle at all times. They can communicate on the computers or text whatever they need to do because the passenger does it. That police officer's out there by himself. He's going on an emergency call. and they put something over the computer. If he's focused on his driving, which he should be, he may miss that vital information that could harm himself or one of the citizens.

[0:31:26] I believe I'm not sure if I just could speak to that, but I believe there's a police department policy that they not use the computer while on emergency calls. The other exemption is for GPS usage, exactly what he said, somebody gets pulled over and stopped for texting while driving, and I said, well, I was on my GPS, you're giving them a defense automatically. I just think that these exemptions should be looked at a little bit closer, because I don't want vital information for the police department to be missed because they were exiting a vehicle or focused on their driving and miss some kind of vital information that should have been put on the radio. Thank you Bill. I have further public comment. Any Council comment on this? Rodney? A couple of things. Start off with all's a remark about the GPS. And you brought it up also, Bill, that you can be deceitful about that and say, well, I was just on my GPS. Well, you can be deceitful at any time and lie about that. If you're going to be the majority, the people probably won't be deceitful, but there's always going to be a few of them out there that aren't going to be deceitful. Let me tell you a story that happened to me about two weeks ago, I was at a four-way on board guard, a four-way stop, and the person was two cars

[0:33:30] in front of me was texting or doing something on their phone, and it was their turn to go through the intersection, and they didn't, and the car that was ahead of me immediately started honking at them, and the person that was driving the front car just started and went right out in front of a car that was coming from the other intersection had to stop in in the middle of the intersection. Now, Paul's idea of not texting while you're at a stoplight, I think that's a terrible idea because you are in a moving vehicle that is in gear and you need to be paying attention to what you're doing. Even when, if you're driving, even though you're not moving, you are still driving. So you're going through that. The law that we are the ordinance that we're working on at this time is the ordinance that we've kind of based it off what the state is looking at doing also. So I think they've put a huge amount of time into this and effort into this to get it to go through when it does, when and if it does come back up for the state. The majority of the people will obey most laws will always have some people that won't obey laws. But I think by having the ordinance, I said law, by having the ordinance out there, I think it will help save people. And even if it just saves one person, it's worth having it out there. And I realized that we may not be riding a lot of tickets on this and we probably won't be because it will be harder to see, but just having it out there, me just knowing, and I take this back to the seat belt, Paul brought that up, the seat belt thing. When I was young in high school, the seat belt law came into effect and everybody was so against that, they were talking about how many people were gonna die by wearing seat belts. It was just gonna be astronomical, it was gonna be so bad. And now I look back on it and I laugh, because it's so crazy to even think that the seat belts would cause more deaths. This is the same type of thing. This is a common sense thing. If you're gonna drive, you don't text. It's common sense.

[0:35:30] We all pretty much realize that. So why not have the ordinance in place? And Paul, I realize once the ordinance in place, he just wants little changes to it. But I think this is the first step, and I think this is a good step. Did I hear a move to approve? move to approve as presented second we have a second from Lucy do I have any further comment from the council before we move on this off of the boat motion has been made to we approve this as presented it has been seconded Ms. Gonzalez all in favor please say aye aye all opposed nay nay put a 5-1 on that please Brian and Anthony Brian I got a call last night from Teddy Reed Teddy Reed said that if you would get some public announcements together she would be glad to put these on KIDY. I have an idea that if Terry Hux had an idea that this was happening with public, that it would be on KLST and KSAN, also Fred Key with Foster Communications and Boomer at 97-5 and Aaron at Lone Star, you know all of these are avenues that I bet we can use. Make some announcements, let's get them to the media and let's get this out so that people understand the new law. The motion has passed five to one, let's move Mayor, this becomes effective right now because it has a fine attached to it. It becomes effective. I'm sorry, it becomes effective the day after publication, which is typically on Friday. It'll be effective next Monday, Saturday. Yes, okay, Saturday Saturday. Please work on Saturday, Tim. No, actually I work every day, mayor. I will say that we will give our citizens a grace period on this and I'll determine that amount by the end of the week. It's fair, sir. Okay, and we will put those in the releases as well. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. What time we got here? We got time to move on then. Okay, on the regular agenda, the first item, number A has been pulled. This will be probably on the next meeting,

[0:37:32] the meeting after, but Al Torres called me yesterday and said he wanted number A on the sick regular agenda pulled. We will also be pulling item number F, which is the 1.750 million for the recreation at 29th Street. We will be pulling number F that will be on the next agenda. So we are now in the regular agenda item B, which is considering approving an agreement the State of Texas to receive an MRAP, Armored Vehicle to be Used by the SAPD for critical incidents response and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. your own sir. Okay, good. We've had the opportunity to participate in this 1033 program. You'll see the slide in front of you basically kind of explains what it is, but it allows us to use military surplus equipment in a law enforcement use. And so we've been contacted by them and advised that we do have something available. We've asked in the CIP for many, many years we've been asking for the Bearcat, the armored personnel, it's manufactured here in the United States. It costs about $245,000 to hold 10 people, and you can see the weight, the height, the length and the width. Now, this particular Bearcat armored vehicle is built specifically for law enforcement and the maneuverability within city streets, those type of things. This is what we have been asking for. That's a picture of the Bearcat, that's what it looks like. The one on the far right is the one that Abilene has that we've used or I've had them bring here before for us to use. If you have any questions, stop me and we'll go over anything. The MRAP is a military version of the Bearcat. The cost for it is zero, but we do have some maintenance costs. The maintenance will probably be about four to five hundred dollars for an oil change.

[0:39:32] It only needs an oil change once a year. you're looking at that and then any other minor maintenance of $1,000. So we're approximately about $14, $1,500 a year to maintain. I'm not certain at this point if it comes with tires because sometimes they do give you tires to go with it because the tires are very expensive. But you can also see that we have some limitations with it. Again it'll hold a few less officers than what we would like. Normally, our SWAT team consists of 12 to 14 members. This will hold probably a little bit more than that, I think, two in the front, six in the back, eight. Lieutenant Pinter, is that correct? Okay. So I hope we can put eight people in it. But you can see the weight is significantly more and the height and the length, the width of the thing. And That's what it looks like. That's the one that we would be getting. And hopefully, we would, just like you did a minute ago, we called a bunch of people out there. I'd like to call all the pain body shops here in town and see if they'd be willing to paint them blue or black for us because we'd really appreciate that. If there's another example of one, I'll just leave that up there. I think the best explanation that I have, that I can use in recent times as an explanation, as to why the need of one of these vehicles for us here in San Angelo is so important. If you remember watching the footage in San Bernardino and watching them using their bare cats to approach the suspected vehicle, that was important. The, it allows us to retrieve injured people while under fire. Being that we are the largest city in the Concho Valley, we will be able to provide support to the outline counties as well.

[0:41:32] Johnny, I'm going to give this to you. You asked for this. I sure have. Tim, what is the difference? I mean, I know the price difference, but what is your recommendation? Is the first one the Bearcat lighter than this one? This looks kind of bulky, kind of heavy, kind of slow, I don't know. I mean, it's 28,000 to 3,000. We're not going to be, hopefully, we're not going to be driving it, you know, very fast. We're going to be using it for approaches, mostly. We get it to the scene, you know, and in that particular instance, they weren't involved in the car chase, but they were there once the vehicle was stopped. You can see the bear cats about 16,000 pounds, 17,000 pounds compared to 30,000 pounds. So it's quite a bit of difference in weight. You know, we really want a vehicle. We've been needing one, I've asked for it for 10 years now. So I would have loved for the council, it was $245,000 about brand new Bearcat, but if this is what we can get, then we'll take what we can get at this point. I would still recommend the city try to find money for a Bearcat layer down the road. Let me ask you, is it with that Bearcat, is that brand new? Brand new. You know, Mayor, before I go, I want to make a motion to approve the Bearcat version of this idea. I think San Angel is, we've gotten big enough that we don't have to reach out the abling to borrow theirs every time we have an incident here and Lord forbid we ever have to use it but I think it's, it'd be, it'd be pertinent for us to have it. So, you know, I've been a proponent of this idea for a while and again, I'll go with my motion to prove that the bear cat on this and that just, that just me, I think. It's not the item on the agenda though, is it? Can we do that later, Johnny, I would make a motion to approve the request for, I guess, the granting of the vehicle from the military and then look again at a vehicle that we would

[0:43:36] purchase at a later date as part of a budget cycle. I don't want to second it, but I think, first of all, we haven't planned for this two hundred $145,000. So I my opinion is that we go with what's free or what's going to be given to us first We see how we're going to use it. It's having something is better than nothing and so I totally think that we need this. I think that it will be used, but I sure do like the free free sound of it Hey, when will you be getting this if they go ahead and prove it in early quickly. Yeah Yeah, this is what we're here in front of council today. They wanted us to have it done before the end of the year. And so we asked them to give us time to get to the first council meeting so that we could go ahead and sign the paperwork and get the approval on it. And will we be paying for it to be transported to us and go get it? Do you know how much that will be? No, we'll handle it in-house. Shane's got the equipment for us to drive and pick it up and bring it back. I don't suspect we'll be driving at home. Now, weren't they taking these away from police departments earlier this year? Yes. During Ferguson and when the president removed or shut down the program for a short time due to the accusations and militarization, that's why, but fortunately, he removed that so we have the opportunity to get it. it be possibly taken away though in the future, the way the agreement reads? Absolutely, it could. Yeah, it could. You know, we've had, we've participated with the 1033 program for years. We had a couple, basically there were tanks, but we couldn't use them on the roadway. And so we had them out at the gun range and they have since picked those up. Where does the MRAP come with tires?

[0:45:36] The MRAP's gonna come with the tires that are on it. Hopefully they'll give us a few extra. But if we bought a $250,000 bear cat, that could be by the stroke of a pin. If you become illegal, it'd be picked up as well, correct? That'd be ours. It's ours. It's ours. It's ours. But give us this one. This one is ours. No. No. No. No. It still belongs to them. They can come take you whenever they want to. It's on loan. I like them. I like free a whole lot better than $250,000. Well, and the fact is he's submitted the bear cat as long as I've known him to be chief and he's never gotten anywhere with it. So, you know, my motion is to go with, as we say, what is available to us and looks like it's being offered to us, realizing their strings attached, but at least we have something where right now we have nothing. Like that. And I do, I would say we can take the vehicle, we can always return it, but we can take the vehicle and we'll discover through time the limitations that we have with this in comparison of Bearcat. We may be fully adaptable with this thing, but I still think that in the long run, The bear cat's gonna be more sufficient for our community, but I agree with you, I think, free right now. We'll take this, and I hope that the next budget cycle will look for that 245. I hope you never need either one of them. All right, exactly, too. You'll wait no second. I'll second the Yamarat. We'll do that in a second. Motion loses. Do I have any further comment from the council? Do I have public comment on this item? Maybe? It's just a quick word, Mr. Mayor. This is just another Band-Aid. San Angelo's notorious for Band-Aids. They need the Bearcat. Once we get this for free, number one, Ms. Grindstaff's right. Their strings attached. Number two, I strongly suspect that they'll never get the Bearcat once we have this thing sitting on the lot. And it's just another Band-Aid. I get that. Jim?

[0:47:39] Yes, my name is Jim Turner. And even though this is going to come to us at no cost initially. One of the things that needs to be considered on any project like this, any acquisition like this, is actually the long term cost, the life cycle cost. I think you're gonna find over the life of something like this vehicle, the maintenance and operations cost could actually raise the total cost to the city to much more than the bear cat. You're going to have to do maintenance with this vehicle, even when it's not being used, just so it doesn't deteriorate. The operations costs per mile, they wear and tear on the roads, all of these factors are going to be much higher because it's twice the weight. The fact that you have fewer personnel available in the vehicle are going to affect the choosability and circumstances where you'll have to take and have additional personnel vehicles and so on involved. That total lifecycle cost of a free item It needs to be considered because it's not free over the life of the vehicle. And I think if you actually do a real life cycle, use life to use life comparison, you'll probably find that the Bearcat is the less expensive way to go. But that isn't what's before you today. And I think you need that information to actually make a good informed decision. that, you're effectively making a purchase of a white elephant, you're getting something that looks great at the front end because it's free, but the operating costs, the maintenance costs, all of those associated costs are going to be much higher than it's a VN vehicle. Even on things like tires, standard maintenance, component replacement, all of that will be much higher on this type of vehicle. And as soon as you're going to be on the hook for all of

[0:49:42] that, plus if things really get desperate, they may pull it from us right when we need it the most because this is not ours. So look at the lifecycle of this and it's not free. You have some very long term expense here. That needs to be part of the discussion and it hasn't been yet. Thank you. Brother public comment. There's lots of ways to look at this. They'll wear where? Pardon me Police Department here needs a vehicle $150,000 for a bear cat is a lot of money and It's hard to take but in immediate future Maybe the MRAP is the answer. I can cite one incident Odessa several years ago, about five or six years ago. Three Odessa Police Department officers responded to a domestic violence situation. When they arrived, the suspect inside the house systematically shot all three officers. One of those officers was laying in the backyard. He was not dead yet. he was bleeding out, but they couldn't get to him because anytime anyone tried to approach they were shot at. They had to wait for a small World War II armored car from the Midland Sheriff's Office to arrive while they were waiting. That officer bled out and died. They

[0:51:43] had an MRAP or any kind of armored vehicle, that officer might have lived. This is something we need to consider because in recent news, there's a lot more going on here than it was three years ago when I moved here. Lots of incidents, we need to protect these police officers. MRAP is the immediate answer. I'd say go for it, and then next budget cycle put in for the Barrequette. For the public comment? Harry Thomas, community volunteer. Just want to follow up with a couple of points that we're already made by some of the people here. Certainly, Mr. Turner has some valid points. But the bottom line is today, the protection of the people, As we look at things that are going on in this nation and in this world today, we need to make sure that our police department has the best equipment that will allow the safety of them and the citizens that we can do. Today, I would suggest that we approve this MRAP, but we also go ahead and put the bear cat on the next budget cycle, and I say, we need to make sure that it's on there. We're gonna be getting into budget discussions very quickly. So the people that are sitting here before us today need to make those determinations, but they need to make that a priority. Thank you. Next, most of them made that we accept the MRAP as presented, that has been seconded. If there is no further, yes. I think we all realize that something that's free has cost with it. If it was perfect, the military would still have it in use.

[0:53:43] but to spend maybe 20,000, 30,000 over the life of our use of this, I think is still prudent, given the fact that we don't have the other vehicle. And I think that just like we have asked to borrow these vehicles from our city's 100 plus miles away, it would be very nice for us to have something to help our community as well as those in the surrounding area. And so I don't make this decision without full fact. I think I understand maintenance on vehicles, on homes, on everything else that any asset that we have. But I think this is still a wise decision, given the prior budget conversations that we've had. So I'm very supportive. For the council, I agree with Liz on that. I mean, it all comes down to if we had planned for this. And I think I would be more in favor of buying the bear cat, if it was planned for. So the next cycle, which I won't be here, but the next cycle, I think, I hope that the council will look at that a little closer than they have in the past. I realize you've brought this up numerous times before, but the world is changing. And we are needing these things, especially with high-powered rifles and things like that. This is one way to get through this. But free is always gonna be better at this point. I realize that we may need to spend the money in the future, but getting this for free right now and getting it, you said yourself to him, we can get this pretty fast, right? That would be really nice. And I don't wanna, and I've seen this happen before on this council or while I've been in this job, where people say, oh, well, we'll get that and we'll just move the money around. And the public doesn't like that. The public hates seeing that because the money's coming from somewhere else. And, you know, hopefully it's not from roads and our infrastructure, but the money always comes from somewhere, and so somebody else is losing on that. So hopefully the next budget around will prove this. I hope that they do, Tim, for you. Any further comment for

[0:55:50] a call for the vote? I just think about them lying, and I'll end with this, is even the price of this bear cat, the life of the police officers, of course, worth more than 245,000. So I would hope that whoever is here will take that in consideration and move forward with it. So all in favor of the MRAP as presented. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Put a 6-0 on that one. It is 10-0-4. Let's call it about a 20-minute break. On the road. Let's move on to item number C on the regular agenda, which is the first public hearing and consideration of an ordinance amending Appendix A, Article A8.000 subsection 88.007, Water Billing Charges, Bill Riley, your own sir. Thank you mayor council. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to assist us in the collection of delinquent closed accounts and so let me just take a couple of minutes here and kind of just run through with you the process. Somebody is a bill is sent and if it is not paid within 28 days then obviously it becomes delinquent. Another bill is sent obviously that shows at the end of that for the next month and it has the delinquent amount if that's not paid in a door hanger. We actually physically go out and put a door hanger on the door and tell the individual that they've got 24 hours to pay that bill or their water will be cut off. If it's not paid, then we turn the water off. If within three to five days we do not receive payment for that delinquent bill, then we send that bill, that account to our billing to basically issue a final bill, and then we send a letter to the customer telling them that. Following that, if we did not receive payment for that, then that is given to municipal

[0:57:54] court, and they send a collection letter to the customer twice, two months in a row. At the point, after the second letter, if we have still not received payment, then basically that account is closed and nothing else is done at this time, it just remains unpaid for a long time. So what we would like to do is maybe try to fix that and provide a means to maybe for collecting those delinquent accounts, just to kind of give you an idea of the amount of money that we're talking about. This is the last three years in how much was in collection for each one of those years. And of course, on the right side, what we actually were able to collect. But you can see that that is amounting to quite a bit of money. This at the end of fiscal year 15, we had about $2.7 million in collections. That also amounts to about 9,000 accounts. And just as a reminder from previous discussions we've had, we have about 10% or 4,000 customers a month that are delinquent, that we go through that process that I just described to collect. So what we would propose to do? Over 10%. It's about 38,000 accounts, so write it, a little over 10%. So what we'd propose to do is to change the ordinance to allow a surcharge, or a 20% charge of the delinquent amount that we would be able to use to pay for a collection agency. So at the point that that account is closed, we would add 20% on that, turn it over to a collection agency to collect, and they would be paid from that 20% charge, so there would be no cost to the city at that point. Obviously the benefits of doing that is that we would be able to enter into a contract with a collection agency at no cost to the city. Currently, the Municipal Court is using a firm called MBBA, they've been using them for over

[0:59:58] or 10 years we would anticipate contracting with them. They recover up to about 30% annually for a municipal court. So basically my recommendation to you today, our recommendation is that we approve the ordinance and so that we could add that cost of the collection agency to the account again, so we could enter into a contract for the collection agency at no cost to the city. And I would anticipate if you approve the ordinance that we would be bringing that back to your next meeting, a contract for what the collection needs. There, if I could. I think that we went through something like this when municipal court set theirs up where the state authorized that additional collection fee to be added, and so I think we've been through this before, and I think they feel that that has largely been successful from the court side. You said that municipal court has no authority to do anything about it, if they don't want to pay, they simply don't pay, and we have no authority to do anything, is that what you said? Pretty much, yes, or that's. What of authority would a collection agency have that the municipal court does not have? Well, they have the focus on it for one thing, and they have the ability to affect their credit rating, and so that's, and they pursue that, whereas we do not have the staff at the time to continue to pursue that process. I don't like this in at all. Man, these are our citizens. I don't see that, I don't see that a collection agency by adding 20% to a delinquent bill that people already cannot pay and just hitting them again for another 20%. And this collection agency has absolutely no more authority to do anything with them than the municipal court. So let's give the municipal court the authority to have some teeth and let's avoid going the extra step. My opinion. Council, discussion? Is that a dis-municipal court want to be involved in this?

[1:01:58] Well, if I could clarify, maybe I didn't make clear. The court uses this kind of system where these collectors are essentially a privatized function. They do some internal work, but when that fails, it's very difficult to collect many, I think many of the accounts which don't get paid are people who don't live here. While a big chunk, I'm sure, do live here. Many don't live here. And so it's very difficult for our marshals to go out and collect in other communities. The point is the Municipal Court uses a collection agency because they find it more efficient in collecting what is O2 City. They've been very sensitive over there about staffing levels. Right. And as collection levels come and go, they try to trim staffing levels so that they're not overstaffed and they found this to be an efficient way to improve collections without adding staff. They're not. They're not. They're using the collection agency now, municipal orders. Right. And they're finding it and they've been doing so for ten years and therefore they're finding it to be inefficient. They are. And we've actually talked to the judge about that and he speaks very highly of the work that they've done for them. Also use one for our EMS collections, if you know several years ago we changed to that because we didn't have a staff to try and pursue that. It's just very time consuming and that's been very successful. Okay, two things on this though. I think that we have an issue that if we are leaving 2.3 million on the table, that's something that we have to make up another way. And the only clear way we know to do that I think is through rates or just general fund support. And I can't support that. To me, the user is the person who needs to pay the bill for the water they've used. So I don't want to look for another way to make up the $2.3 million. So I'm happy to use a collection agency if we all agree

[1:03:59] that that's the most efficient way to do it. Are we saying this is the agency? Have they been vetted? How did we pick this agency? Well, I'm not saying to you today that this is however I would anticipate that they would be since they're already working for municipal court and it would just be an extension of that contract. Okay, but we're not really talking about today the procurement of which company we're just approving or considering a concept and the ordinance right that would pay for that. The only other option would be as far as not adding a 20% fee on top of that is to just give them 20% off of what's we haven't collected at this point the 2.3 million dollars comes up to $460,000 that we pay to this group. And at this point, we're not collecting on those accounts as it is anyway. Typically, when an account goes 90, especially 120 days past two, it's almost impossible to collect on those accounts. So it's really important to have a group that that's their expertise to actually do this to come and step in and do this type of work. It's important to the citizens that are paying their bill to not have their bill go up because of the inability of someone else not to pay. Do we have any programs locally that help citizens that are really in a dire situation with something like a water bill? We do, and we actually talked about those as we went through the rate process, and I don't recall all of them off the top of my head, but there are several. I'm giving you the chance to. Thank you. Several entities in the city that do that. Now, in all fairness, there was some discussion with those entities, I think, to the media after we had talked about that, and not like everybody. they're kind of strapped for funding, and so they have to be real careful where that funding goes. But there are entities that do help people that need help. And I would certainly have to agree with Mr. Valenzuela that regardless of whether this is approved or not that we put the additional 20% on, we certainly need to move forward, I think, with the collection agency

[1:06:00] so that we have somebody that's pursuing this because it is a growing amount of money that we're just falling farther and farther behind. It's become real money. That has a direct impact on the year-end financial audit process. That's when we are accounting staff and our external auditors consider the collectability of those receivables, and they'll book an allowance for uncollectable debts associated with that, which essentially devalues that asset. If we have a collection strategy, which is only 10% effective, then the value of that asset is 10% of what it's on the books for, and we need to have an allowance or an offset to that of 90%. If we have a more effective collection strategy, which for example is 20% effective or 30% effective, that doubles or triples the value of that asset, and it reduces the loss we take, the collection loss that we take during that receivables examination process. So we've made a few changes in the past which we tried for which the objective was to help department managers more effectively manage the finances in their areas. The fact that this group is looking at this financial management practice is a good thing. How we address it is certainly something for debate but the fact that they are looking at how maximize the financial side of this operation is a very good thing. So this is a strategy which has proven effective in municipal court and I think that's probably why they brought it to us today. I have a question. How long have these accounts been delinquent, the status of them? Some of these are years old. They've just basically left, most likely they're people that have left town. We have no way of finding them. Some are new, but this has been, you know, adding up

[1:08:05] for some time. You can see that it grows pretty drastically each year, but this is, some of these are again, are years old. And some of those will never be recovered. That's just the reality of that. Rod, did you have comments, sir? Yeah, I'm with Duane on this. I don't like adding, the 20% would be added on top of the penalties that we've already done, right? That's great. I think I would be in favor of using this company to try to get the money back, but I'm not in favor of adding another 20% just so that they can have their margin on that side of it. I would rather be like Michael was saying if we got, you know, if we raise it from 10% to 20% or 30% of collected amount, we would be much better off than we are now. So I would I would just leave it at what the penalty is and with with the penalties what we have charged and then we do an agreement with that company to take whatever we're going to get out of that. So if we get 80 percent of what they collect or whatever it may be, then I would be fine with doing that. That's certainly better than where we are. Yeah, it is. It sounds like it would probably, like Michael said, again, it would raise it from way down to, I mean, you could double it pretty easily because it would be so low that it's not being collected at all really now. I agree with that approach. John? I guess the question I have is you eat on the number of accounts last year there was 9,000 accounts that are the length one is that right? That's an accrued amount. Okay. So then even prior to 13, you're looking at how far back you said years and years. I don't know how far this goes back this, but this is the total today. So, and I'm kind of leaning with Rodney and the mayor on some of these folks, and I don't agree with adding the 20% at all, you know, on top of what they already owe.

[1:10:05] But some of these have already been reported as far as it goes on their credit, and how does that work there? Have they been reported as delinquent to the credit bureau, or? We don't have a mechanism currently to do that, that's part of what the collection agency would do through that process and there's nine thousand that are is that the history of the city history of the water department or is it just how many years back that is the accrued amount right now that are in collections that's the history of the building as we know it at this time so you're not going to go after I mean people there were 20 years ago or 10 years ago or those like I said And some of those are just gone. And a collection agency they may decide to depending on what the amount of the collection is, that would be their decision. Why can't our municipal court put a mark on their credit rating? I mean, why can't we at the municipal court at the government level do the same thing that we would hire a collections agency to do? That's what I don't understand. Mayor, the municipal court is using the collection agency for their process now. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear that was the point I was trying to make that what Bill is proposing today is I believe exactly what municipal court is doing today and let me restate my question why can't we as the City of San Angelo a water department utilities why do not we have the authority to put it on the credit rating why do we have to go and hire someone else to do something that we ought to be able to do in house why do we need to take the second step. Why can't you go to the credit bureau and say, this person has not paid, we tried to collect and we put this on their credit. Why can't you do that? Why do we have to hire someone to do something that we could be able to do for ourselves? That's my question. I want Bill repairing streets and water lines and being concerned about infrastructure and

[1:12:09] not spending his time on collections. That's a city function and not a department function. And even in there's I mean we're not just talking about reporting to the credit agency I mean these are individuals are actively actively involved in trying to collect these monies And whether it's through phone calls through letters through whatever method methodology they use to cut out a collect It's not just submitting as far as you know in your credit reporters. Well, we do that now We do that under the process that I just indicated mayor to why can't we add one step to that process after we've gone through our process Yes, we're going to force you to create your bureau. Our process is to mail them a letter, and they either pay or they don't pay, and we shut their water off and then they're gone. We don't have the means today to pursue that. As they leave the town, they change addresses, it becomes very difficult, and the collection agencies are geared to find them, and to pursue that, and that's what we're paying for, is that pursuit to get that payment. What average amount are we talking about, and do you have any idea, three, four hundred dollars per account, or any idea? The range is all over the place, Councilman. There's not an average. It can be a small bill. It can be a large bill. I just hate to keep adding layers of bureaucracy to the top of the layers of bureaucracy that we already have. And I'm certainly opposed to adding 20% to a bill. I mean, you can add 100% if you want to. If they can't pay it, they can't pay it. And just because you sick a bulldog on them, they still can't pay it. So. That's right. Mayor, I'm talking about a matter of can't pay or a matter of don't pay. No, I don't know what that's not wrote down in that 9163, those that can't and those that won't. He's not necessarily the one that can make that determination either. in either. That's why you use some an expertise from outside. I agree with the

[1:14:10] gentlemen that have already spoken. I think we need to be more aggressive in collections for everyone's sake but I'm not sure that it's going to cost us as much as as y'all have proposed. I think I'd be happier with using the existing structure, even though I realized that what your current penalty, so to speak, also pays for the person who goes and hangs the door hanger. I mean, we have labor involved in that, and I recognize that, but I'm not set on what a percentage increase should be as much as the idea of pursuing the collections themselves using a professional agency. And that percentage was based on what they charge. And I'm hearing what you're saying, and I think from my perspective is, the main focus is if you choose not to add that penalty, is that we still focus on having someone to pursue that. I think that's very important, even if it costs us that 20%. I think the bottom line is right, we're leaving $2.7 million on the table, and I see you're not a collector, you guys are an expert collectors, So, you know, I'm hearing both sides, but I can imagine, somehow we need to try to collect even half of that. That's right, 50% would be an impact. This is accumulated over a long period of time. Not on a time. If you collect 20% of it, you're going to be doing wonderful. What did we say? I would think even 10 would be ours. I think that's probably closer to right. What is our, on average, what are we looking at on an annual basis? What's that number? I went 400 and about around a half a million dollars, right? Yeah. It's significant. The biggest success that they'll have, of course, are accounts that are 60 days late that are. And the deal is here is that we're saying 20%, but we can actually perhaps work something

[1:16:11] out where there's a lower percentage for those accounts that are more collectible. If it's a 60-day account, maybe it's a 15% charge. If it's much longer than that, then it's 20% because the labor involved to try to collect an account that's been, it's an over a year old, I mean, that should perhaps be a 20 percent type payout. But if it's 60 days, maybe it's a 10 or 15 percent. So that's something, some of the details that we can work out as far as how much that collection agency truly has paid percentage-wise. I would think that the 20 percent, I would probably leave it at 20 percent because I think they're going to work harder for the companies or their clients that are paying them, what everybody else is paying them. But I'm not in favor of adding that on to the top. I move to approve without adding the 20% on. I think I'll second that bill. What you're actually improving today is whether or not we pass an ordinance that adds the 20%. So if you don't want to add that. We just have them come back with a different proposal. We're bringing a contract for the collection agency back to you. Yeah. Let us look at some real figures that just arbitrary. You know, yeah, and, you know, the phone calls I get about the water bill are always about that twenty-five dollar. I get more about that than I do anything because I'm not sure how it hits, and I've heard the mayor, you know, his soapbox about that, but do it again. We agreed that we weren't going to soapbox. Remember? I am prepared though. The 25 somehow hits, well, it hits a weird way or something. You know, but people with smaller water bills can get that 25 and it ends up being a really big percentage. And that's as close as I want to get, because if I get any closer to that, the mayor's going to get on something. I can say amen. I mean, that's exactly what I've been trying to say for the last six years. I know it's not only it did but they really keep that in mind because once that I think is a three o'clock cut off

[1:18:14] Whatever, and that through oh five and I get there. That's a big thorn in a lot of people's eyes We need a motion one way or the other either to deny or to approve the ordinance as presented I move that we table this item And then bring back some and bring back something and I'd agree with that somebody won't second that If we bring you back as an ordinance amendment, right now there's not a provision in the code of ordinances that adds this charge, the purpose of this ordinance is to add the charge. So if we don't want to add the charge and we need to deny the order and we'll bring back the contract at a later meeting to discuss. You wanna change it to the next? Who did the second on that? I'll second that. You'll second the now? Yeah, that's good. Let's bring this back with some information so that we can make a- You haven't done the vote yet, so. Yeah. Okay, got a motion to deny this ordinance and the charge. It has been seconded and then to bring it back for with clarification so that we'll have something to go on. Do I have public comment on this item? My name is Jim Turner and I'm also very much not in favor of adding a lot of bureaucracy but something you have to remember here is if you don't hire the expertise to do the collections outside of the city, you're gonna have to grow up within the city which means more personal expense. You're going to have to have somebody dedicated to collections. This is not something you can do over your lunch break. This is something that takes an organization with strategy plans, connections, and very information intensive operation. And getting that set up in-house with very labor intensive and would also be expensive but in other assets, with databases and so on, that you'd have to take and pay for access

[1:20:16] to in order to do the job right and make the collection. When you go to an agency that's handling several accounts, they already have that and they get the economies of scale. So instead of paying for one full-time worker plus everything you're paying for a tenth or a 20th of a worker full-time. It's the same thing we do with a lot of construction. City doesn't do its own construction. They hire people to do it. City hires a lot of outside people to do things that are needed by the city. This collection, because it's such a small part of the total collection that a professional agency would do, it's much more sensible to have an outside, reputable, trusted agency that's been vetted properly. Like the courts already using, That's why they're doing it. They don't have to have that many people doing it if they got somebody else that's already got access to everything. Because when you want to report to the credit agency, you still have to pay for that. If you do that, what's part of the overall, their process, they know all the steps. They don't have to have the additional training that we'd have to get. We don't have, they don't have to duplicate what we would. So it makes more sense. And you could very easily, if you set up a collection department within the city eat up all the money you collected paying for the guy who did the collection. Thank you. Further public comment? Yeah, I will call for the vote. And that is to deny, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay? There's 6-0 on that one. OK. Number D is discussion and possible consideration of city logo following results of public online survey. Anthony Wilson. Good morning, I'm Anthony Wilson, your public information officer, and I'm here this morning to reveal the results of our online logo survey, and also to reveal what the city's brand is

[1:22:18] going to be moving forward. So as you may recall, assuming we approve or concur, right? I've never known this council to disagree with me before, Councilwoman Grindstaff. That was a joke. We had 14 options that you guys approved last month, including the current logo. We conducted the survey online from December the 2nd through January the 2nd, and again, we publicized this at no cost whatsoever in our local mass media and our social media. And I am pleased to announce that we had 2,095 responses. I thought that was an outstanding response to the survey. those who voted 58% voted to change the logo. And so here are the public's top three choices. The second runner up was this one, Rivers, and it got 10% of the vote. The first runner up is Spangles, and it got 16% of the vote. The winner is Long Dramatic Pregnant Pause. Oh shoot, how did that get in there? I knew I was going to mess this up somehow, someway. The winner is the current logo, which got 42% of the vote. Mayor, I can tell you're very happy about that. The public has spoken and so we will move forward with the logo that we've had since 2003 if the council approves. I believe I've received more phone calls over this. You're welcome. Anything. They were not positive. They were not positive. I like that logo. Apparently so does the public and we're very good with that. Does that mean this item is dead?

[1:24:19] I would say as long as Anthony is alive the issue will not be dead but you know Anthony you know we all got calls and I think there were there were some people in the community who also somehow missed the competition itself and contacted some of us I also heard a lot of you know feedback like why are you messing with this right now we've got other concerns but the fact is you did get a lot of people kind of involved. And I think that there's great value in that. I think it's an interesting experiment to see over 2,000 people who voted on a logo. And only a handful came to public meetings to talk about a water rate increase. So I think we know that our work is ahead of us in looking for ways to excite the public to get them involved in kind of some of the meatier, more difficult issues before the city for the future. But I do applaud you for kind of taking off in a slightly strange direction, but getting people involved again. I'll take that as a compliment. You know, as you guys know, one of the things that I really strive to do in my job is to engage our citizens in some form or fashion. And I think that this did happen with this logo survey. And, you know, our likes, the number of people who follow our Facebook page dramatically shot up during the past month and I think it's because a lot of people got engaged and that makes it a lot easier for us to communicate important issues that the council and the city are dealing with whenever we are facing that because we'll have that much larger an audience online. So I do not consider this to be a failure in any regard and in fact I think the public is spoken and we're good with that and the fact that our Our public information officer was working on this, did not prevent us from repairing one water main or paving one street or filling one pothole or whatever the case might be.

[1:26:21] I'm sorry, I missed what came in second, I had to step away through. Oh. That one right there, Councilman. So anyway, I'll take my seat now. Thank you, Anthony. You did engage the public. Let's move on now to item number E, which is approval of proposed items. I'm going to agreement with the Consular Cruises concession at Lake Nazworthy. Carl White. Yes, sir. We're seeking counsel's approval of proposed terms for an agreement with Consular Cruises concession. A quick orientation, we are talking about Lake Nazworthy and Mary Lee Park, this location here off of Knickerbocker. The agreement has a concession area defined in the first amendment, which includes this area here. This is at Mary Healy Park, looking at the ground approaching from the north along the road. The operation is here on this side and the boat, since we're not currently in the agreement now, the boat is currently out of the water parked here. This is looking at the area which he's got equipment, vehicles parked, which is not in the agreement. Looking again, a quick look at his website for Consul Cruz's. We did have an agreement and these are the basic terms of the last agreement. The term was from May 1st 2010 to April 30th 2015. There was an annual fixed base payment 3,000. It didn't start at 3,000. It started at 1,000 and went up $500 each year and ended at 3,000. And there was an additional percentage payment of 6% and the original agreement did not really specify the

[1:28:22] area that was under the lease so the First Amendment specified that which was the area I showed you and in the agreement there is no alcohol cells. We were been talking about and renewing this agreement Mr. Nickel who's here who would like to speak has requested the following terms a term to go to the year 2030, a flat annual fee of $6,000 with no additional percentage payment in an expanded use area. Just some related discussion items. This is the area where the Gateway study was talking about private development under a long-term lease with the hotel, restaurants, stores, keeping the beach open and maybe even adding the marina. need to talk about the use of the area that's not in the agreement now. I would like to say every time I've heard about the Contra Cruises it's always been positive. I've always heard positive feedback from the public how much they like the concession operation. So we think it's a good thing. We did take the side of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. They asked us to consider the following, recommend the following. Go ahead with a five-year release with two options to renew for five years each go with a slide headed on that page this was gonna be staff's recommendation it's a little bit different than what they recommended but yes it was a five-year term with two five-year extension options go ahead and add the additional space where he's using to park his vehicles and the boats require it to be screened at his expense with like a a wooden fence and we would specify that. And then the board asked us to have council negotiate the term. So we didn't want to negotiate the terms of the council meeting. So staff is proposing that we increase the annual payment

[1:30:22] from 6,000 to 6,500 because we're adding additional space and keep that for the first five years as an annual payment. The annual payment is easier for both parties, staff, and for the concessionaire, as opposed to adding additional payment with the percentage payment. And then if we renew that lease for each of the five years, bump that up to 7,000 for the next second five years, and then 7,500 for the third five years, if we go to those extensions. I understand that the lease is now 3,000, and you're proposing going from 3,000 to 6,500? Right, because we're taking out, we're proposing to take out the annual percentage payment, And that anal percentage payment has been very close to $3,000, just under $3,000 in the last couple of years. That's correct. In other words, it's going to be about the same. That's correct. But we're recommending that it goes up a little bit because we're adding additional space to the lease. Now, this is just comparing to two other leases, Spring Creek, Marina, which we just renewed. That lease is about $13,000 a year. And we also have Lake Nazworthy tours, which is a smaller operation. That's our steamboat. They have a lower annual payment. They are doing a 6% percentage payment, and they're occupying less space. And their annual payment is, I think, is $750, but if they have much less space. I have a question. I think stop mute. Okay. What is the term on the last one, the steamboat? What town of terms did we do? Steamboat? Yeah. It was five years. It was a five-year extension? I don't remember, I do believe there is, but I don't recall. And when you say screening back there, and we're asking for screening of the property that's on the east side of the road there that's away from the water, is it gonna be fully screened and gated?

[1:32:22] I'm thinking three sides, mostly the screen it from view, from knicker-bocker. This is the area, I'm thinking of four foot wooden fence. It could be chain link with a fabric screen, but I'm thinking of wooden fence. Have we talked to the owner and have we worked that out with him? Yes, we've talked about it. He understands he just wants to know exactly where the fence should run. We're talking basically, kind of like this. Oh, just on the one side, not even down to the road. Kind of like a U shape, not entirely screams. We still see the part. The only complaints that I've got, this is my district. The only complaints I've got is that, and you've gotten those also about how that looks, because everything that's over on the water side is always beautiful. It's always maintained really, really well. But the other side kind of looks like a parking lot, where you're just parking things. And I would be more in favor of lowering his cost to the 6,000, not hitting this first year on flat rate, do 6,000 the first year, first five years, or for five years, and then allow him to do a fence all the way around that not all the way around it but on three sides of it like that yes but I'm not in favor of doing a 15 year of five years and two extensions on that because if we have a problem with with any concessionaire I think that we should be able to go out and get another concessionaire if we need to I think five years is a is enough time to to give them to line out their future a little bit. But 15 years, I like 15 years. You're not okay with the 15 year lease, but are you okay with the five year lease with two options to renew at mutual agreement? No, because then we're locked into him if he agrees to it. Well, we don't necessarily have to agree to

[1:34:23] not the we don't we can we can we would have the option to do one renewal. It's not automatic. I would do five year with the option to renew once. OK. So 10 years. There's no need in doing it on and on and on, I don't think. And I would be more in favor of doing the 6,000 and hope, because that's what he's basically paying now, 6,000 this five years, and then hopefully increase the size of the fence just a little bit there. And to require the screening at his expense. And I'm fine with the four foot or whatever he has to do, because I don't wanna hit him too hard on the expenses of that. Honey, you will build the wall. What is that? Maybe with the increase in area usage, I didn't understand that. Well, in the agreement and the first amendment, the specified area of the, under the agreement is that area there. He is using the space over here, not under the amendment to park the boats. He's requesting use of this space. I think though that he was verbally told he could do that. It's possible. There's no documentation. I feel pretty confident that he was. I don't think he just started parking his stuff over there. I think that it was kind of a verbal thing that was in previous people in the past. So I don't think he wasn't breaking any rules or anything as far as that goes. Reality is he needs he needs some hidey space to hide some stuff Is not good just mostly trailer. So that's the area you're going to request him to fence Yes, sir This this that's this one right here. No, he said do it straight across the back I was kind of like a small you but you're thinking a little bit more on the sides There's a forefoot tall enough to screen all of that or does it I think so I mean because in that case the vehicles would not see it as a driving by I would just make it a requirement whatever he how he

[1:36:25] screams it if it's four foot you know you can't see the stuff in there he's gonna put stuff taller than that then he needs to go ahead and make it six right off the bat so there's gonna be some stuff if he's going with wood six months six foots the normal anyway he'd have to cut the boards off to make it forward where he said he can you chainly I don't want to make him do the to the signs I I would prefer to leave it like you said. Well, you want to put a lot more financial burden on him to do this. He is doing a good job out there. I like him and the business is doing good. It's good for San Angelo, but maybe if we do six foot the way you said it first, just straight across the back right there, blocking it from the road. Okay. Do I have any comments down here? Is the least specified what he's allowed to put in that screened area? We have it. We could. You don't want fuel. I mean, it would simply be trailers and, I guess, the boat. It's renewable from other ways. It also needs to just state that it needs to be kept tidy as well. I mean, just because it's been on one side doesn't mean it. Right. I think it's pretty tidy. It's just full. Right, but let's just be careful. Because you have such a visible area there. It's, you know, it's one of our nicest parts of the community, so. But you can't say, we can't word that block everything. Because for example, that boat sitting there, you can't do it. I mean, you'd have to do a 12-foot fence, and there's no way you could do that. And normally, his big boat wouldn't be there, but right. It blocked the vehicles and everything. See, everything's parked orderly there. There's little things back in the back that's up against that fence line. But if you have the fence back there blocking out, I don't think you'll really see that. I moved to accept a five-year contract with $6,000 a year with one extension, one option to extend. A second. I've got a problem with that one extension. I mean, he's got a lot of money invested in this.

[1:38:27] There's a lot of money invested in this. And if we give him two extensions, it has to be, we both have to agree to it. So if we've got a problem with him in the 11th year, and he says, I want to continue, and we've got a problem, we can say no. But as far as not even giving this option, when he's got such a tremendous investment in this, I don't understand why we would limit him. You could require the extensions to come back to council for approval. I don't see why we would limit him to one extension on five years, why not give him the two extensions? If he's doing everything right, he'll get 10 years out of it. He can come back at that time. And then we may see that this land at that point is worth way more. We're locked into the cost that we're gonna say that we're going to charge them on this. Let's say they built a marina right next door where they're talking about doing a marina hotel type situation. This thing could jump from 6,000 a year to possibly 20,000 a year or more. So we're locking, we're kind of hurting ourselves by setting what we would charge in the future. But then this is a man that's been out there for the last five or six, seven, eight years that made the investment when it was not worth anything or not worth it. Well, we haven't promised him anything beyond what he has or what we're discussing, but with all of the planning activity that we've done around the lake, I think Rodney's exactly right. I mean, it may be that we ask that we move him down to some other location in the future if there's a higher and better use that meets the planning criteria that we've been talking about. And I think he'd be happy because there'd be more action around him that puts him in the middle of things. but this isn't ownership, it's just a lease. You have a motion that we go with one year in one extension, it has been second, five years, with one five year extension with the options to extend. We've got a motion in a second.

[1:40:27] And on that second, the second five years, what was the, I mean, we need to raise that second five year. I had said, start at 65, then go to 7,000, but you said 6,000, then the next five years will be 65. I would be in favor of doing it that. That's the way I would like my motion to read. So the second option would be to $6,500. We do away with the percentage altogether. And then the next second five years would be $7,000. $6,000 for the first five years, what he's paying close to now, and then the second five years would be $6,500. It's $500, okay. I'm satisfied with that. I just don't see why we would cut him out of that third year option, but that third five year option. But I guess if there's something in the contract that said he can then appeal that to the city council, I guess I could live with that. I mean, once it comes up, he's going to ask for it again, I'm sure. He's satisfied. Yeah, he could ask for another 10 years after that. I'm just worried. You see what I'm saying to Wayne? I'm worried that we'll be charting 6500, and there's a marina next door that spent $50 million, and this land automatically goes from being more $6,500 to $30,000 or more. I understand that, but I also understand he's been out there when we didn't have that $60 million, and he's put the money in it, and he's put the effort in it, And now we're saying we're going to give you this until something better comes along You know, I that doesn't feel right either But I guess the way you said it will work as long as he has the right to appeal Any further comments on this? I'm gonna ask mr. Nichols if he's got anything to say Good morning, sir State's name place her and then you got a couple of contral cruises and Marina the y'all got a marina Place up first nothing up there anymore My best country crews at Marina, I sell boats, rent boats,

[1:42:30] and that's the biggest, I got the biggest rental dealership on water in state of Texas. It's a Marina, I got 31 rentals. I got something over 400,000 in it. It's still building, trying to, anyway, But you know, a five-year lease on something that I got $400,000 in, which I like to have a part-time job. And I don't like part-time jobs, you know. But as much stuff I got out there, and it's a marina. Guys, you got a marina. You got one of the biggest in the state of Texas, first rental boats, for the public. And I appreciate it, and whatever y'all say that's what they'll do, You know, regardless. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Do I have any other further public comment on this item? One question I've got, and this is a little bit off-key, but when I talk to Mr. Nichols a couple of months ago, he says there's some concrete and old something out in that water that needs to be moved so he can move and get his boat back in the lake. Am I talking right, Mr. Nichols? Yes. And this might be a good time to bring this up because he's got a few problems, too, getting his boat back in the water because of some instructions out in the lake. Am I off to for my two for off? Two for off. Bring it up to the end. Okay. Then we'll bring that up as a future agenda item because I think we need to do something about that. But, okay. Well, I'll bring that up. We'll talk about that at another time because I'm getting too far off agenda. But I do want to talk about that as well at a later date. Okay, do I have any further public comment before a call for the vote? Motion has been made that we go with $6,000 a year for the first five years with an option, 6,500 for the second five years, and then he has the authority to bring it to the council for further extensions.

[1:44:32] But this is all we will guarantee, and he will have to put up a fence, probably six foot wood type fence that would screen on the backside. Is this something that's acceptable, Rodney? Yes. Is that acceptable in your second? I think it's an opaque fence, because there are other ways to do that without us because she's not being would, yes, yes, absolutely. And you're agreeable with that, Ms. Nicholson? Okay, I would call for the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Bose and aye. Put a 6-0 on it. You were just testing Theresa to see if she'd allow us. All right, we have nothing in executive. So there will be no reason to go to a closed session executive so we can go right straight to follow up and administrate it. Under item number eight, item number eight, is consideration of and possible action on matters discussed in executive closed session. Obviously, there is none, since there has been no executive session, which takes us to be, which is consideration of approving various board nominations. Animal Services Advisory Board, FADEP, SMD1, to a second term ending January 218. Jenny Wilson, SMD2, animal welfare, to the first term, ending January, 2018. Most appeasy, SMD-5, citizen, to an unexpired term ending January, 2017, and Brian Stevens, a veterinarian here in town, is appointed by the mayor to an unexpired term ending January, 2017. Do I have a motion for approval? Approval, second. Right, I have a motion and a second, do I have comment? Do I have public comment? All in favor as presented, please say aye. Opposed nay civic events board number two scott's aruba appointed by the mayor to the first term ending October two 17 May I have a motion to approve? second with Lucy comment from council public comment all in favor of please say aye

[1:46:34] Opposed nay Number three is MHMR services Tim David port Herps to a first term ending October two 17 Jeff Gibson to a second term ending October two 17 Patreveno to first term ending October 2 17 Linda Kajoski to a second term ending October 2 17 and Diana's speaker to a first term ending 2 17 may I have a motion to approve. Rodney you made the motion I'll take I'll take Marty's second as Diana's name spelled right comments from Council on this public comment all in favor is presented please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. And this brings us to announcements. Consideration of future agenda items. Start with you Mr. Grandstand. Again reminder neighborhood chat January 11th 6 p.m. St. Paul Presbyterian on Pecastry. Still I guess looking for the development review item Daniel do you have an idea when we'll see that. Okay and then I think also what I'd like to see is something that might have performance standards in it. And then And also, I think we need some discussion, or at least clarification on a point of contact on trash-related complaints. Do they call the city? Do they call republic? People who have questions about pickup, if the pickup is for late, or if somebody is missed, who do they contact? And are they working on the weekends? Trash that's not put in the canisters, How are those reported and who are they reported to? And then also, can's being left out 24-7. Again, it's not clear if they need to call Jeremy or if they need to call Republic, and then how do we monitor that? So I know everybody's trying, but we're still,

[1:48:37] I don't think the public is clear on who the first point of contact is for those issues. Is Lacey? Hi, I have nothing. That's the thing. I actually left early the day we talked about even the idea of Bell Reconstruction, Bell Street. Can we get an update on where we are on that or any other street, really, just some kind of... I think it would be nice. Good morning. Nothing at this time. I think nothing. The only thing I've got, I would like to put this on about the lease on with control cruises about the obstruction in the lake and see if we might be able to help those nickels out on that. It may not need a council. I'm trying to believe about that to see if that can be resolved without a council agenda. If it requires additional funding or something of that source, then we'll bring it back. But if we can solve it, we'll just let you know, Carl, let you know what they find out. I just know that there is a problem and I want it brought forward. So if we can do it internally and then bring something back to council, if necessary, and I have nothing else. I'm looking for a motion to turn. I forgot one thing. I would like to add on there. Colin and I went out there and looked at the dog that's out in front of the nature center. And I want to bring that forward and talk about how we can get this on into the next budget because that thing is falling apart. I walked all the way out there. There was four fishermen at the time and I was scared to walk out there. And people go out there on a daily basis. I think that we need to figure out what we need to do with that and move forward with the plan. that we've talked about what we want to do, but we've got to get a plan to do it. We can look at that and bring it back as Carl may I iterate what happened in engineering study done on this. We're planning on bringing it back anyhow. Okay, perfect. You started to say. I tried to say motion to adjourn. Somebody go say second. All in favor say aye. Aye. This meeting's open.

Transcribed 2026-07-27 with faster-whisper (base.en) · source: youtube.com/watch?v=KCie_iCOY1M