San Angelo City Council 12-12-17

[0:00:00] Thank you all be seated, please. Anthony, would you please come forward and lead us in prayer? I've been asked to be the pinch hitter this morning with prayer, and so otherwise I would have brought a very eloquent invocation from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, but instead I'll just sort of muddle through this. First, I want to wish everyone a Happy Hanukkah today as the first day of Hanukkah. Let us pray. Dear Lord, in this season of Advent, We ask that you keep us open to all the wonders and hope that you bring to us on a daily basis. Today in particular, we ask that the participants of this meeting be lifted up to be the very best versions of themselves. Treating one another with dignity, with respect, we ask for wisdom for our elected officials, and always we ask for your grace. these things we ask in your name, amen. I would now like to ask the Angel Catholic School to please come forward and lead us in the pledge. Come on, and today, why don't you turn around and look at them first so I can introduce you, and then we'll turn around for the slides, OK? All right, so today we have Daniel Salazar. We have Chase Watson. Chase, are you there? Raise your hand. Okay, Kinsey Gonzalez, thank you Kinsey and Ali Padilla.

[0:02:03] Padilla, glad Padilla, thank you for helping me with that. All right, now we are going to turn around and do the pledge. For which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor, the Texas Black, I pledge allegiance to the Is Mitch Spranger here this morning, and I probably mispronounced that too. Okay. An Angel Regional Airport Deputy Director Mitch Spranger recently joined some select company professionally. Mitch has earned the distinction of accredited airport executive, as awarded by the American Association of Airport Executives. so required his completing a rigorous three-phase process. First, Mitch had to pass a 180-question examination. Second, he had to fulfill a writing requirement. And third, he demonstrated knowledge of airport management, business administration, and transportation economics during an oral interview with a panel of fellow accredited airline executives. In earning the accreditation, which is among fewer than 10% of the association's 5,700 members nationwide who have earned the

[0:04:07] distinction. Here in our community he is known for being a tireless and committed public servant dedicated to the success of St. Angelo Regional Airport and to its flying public. Therefore I, Brenda Gunter, Mayor of the City of St. Angelo on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize and applaud Mitch Sprounger for his achievement and positive determination to to make a difference in our community. And witness where I have here unto set my hand and have caused the official seal of the City of San Angelo to be affixed this 12th day of December, 2017. Congratulations. Thank you. I'd like to say thank you. There was a lot of time and effort put into this, so I'd just like to say thank you to a couple people for making this happen. First of all, my wife, there were several evenings weekends where I went to the library and studying she had to watch our kids so thank you for taking the time to do that. There was the gentleman in Flint Michigan, he's the deputy airport director in Flint Michigan, his name's Joe Medici and he put a lot of time and effort in helping me prepare for this and then also the airport director, Lou Elgazabu. Thank you for helping me study and your determination in helping me get this and to all of our users, the traveling public, thank you for letting me represent you at this facility. Thank you. Is Mike Buck here today? Roland Pina and the rest of the crew. As they say a big

[0:06:33] team effort, let's repeat that. A team of San Angel City and County government, workforce development, economic development, education, industry, and AmeriCorps Vista professionals were recently awarded the Certified Work Ready Community designation at the National ACT Workforce Summit 2017 held in Austin, Texas on November the 16th. Tom Green County joined some 190 work-red communities in 25 states and is only the second county in the state of Texas to receive the ACT Work ready community certification. Over 18,000 employers of business and industry recognize the value of a skilled workforce and are demanding the national career readiness certificate NCRC. Within 10 months, the San Angel team met the 2016 strategic plan goals to achieve the certification having over 100 employers recognize the value of the NCRC certificate and having 1,329 members of the Tongue Green County workforce certified as work ready and holders of the official National Career Readiness Certificate. The program continues to grow and expand into the nearby counties creating the opportunity for regional certified workforce. The ultimate outcome is the reduction in cost of onboarding, training time and turnover, making the businesses more viable for profitability and quality of product. Therefore, I, Brenda Gunter, Mayor of the City of St. Angel, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize and applaud the Tom Green County Work Ready Community Team for their achievement in positive determination to make a difference in our community and witness whereof I have herein to set my hand and have caused the official seal of the City of St. and Angelo to be affixed this 12th day of December, 2017.

[0:08:33] Congratulations everybody. I'm going to turn it over to Rick, Commissioner Bacon. So in economic development, it's important and critical that we team together as a community and I was going through the list of everyone that's been involved from the get-go. And I've counted about 35 different individuals and organizations. And just to give you an idea of who all has been involved, Angela State University College of Business, Angela State University Academic Affairs, almost every department at Howard College has been involved. The City of St. Angela Development Corporation, the City of St. Angelo Human Resources Department, Tom Green County, we have two commissioners in the county judge who have been involved. The Region Education Center 15, San Angelos Central ISD, Crystalville ISD, and from the private sector, we've had Foster Communications, Shannon Medical Center, and Ethicon Johnson & Johnson. And very important to us is the Concho Valley Workforce Development Board and the Concho Valley Workforce solutions. A lot of organizations that have been involved, this is just a portion of the team. This designation is a designation for the county and our workforce making our workforce certified and ready for employers attracting new businesses. The award's gonna be housed at Tom Green County and I'm gonna let Rick Bacon talk a little bit about that. Thank you Roland. Yes we just wanted to let you know that on behalf of Tom Green County Judge Floyd and County Commissioners. We see this as another tool in our toolbox for hiring and helping the workforce become more

[0:10:36] ready, making sense a little more productive and more attractive to economic development and so we're very pleased to house this and accept this award on behalf of the County and City of San Angelo. Thank you. We will now open up for public comment. I ask that at this point anyone who has a cell phone please double-check it and make sure it's turned off if you would please. Issues or items that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time. Citizens should speak from the podium begin by stating their name and limit remarks to less than three minutes. Council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda. The council takes public comment

[0:12:37] on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items. Do I have anyone here today who would like to come forward and speak. Good morning. Please state your name. I'm Brian Wedgeworth and I live on the north end of town and I'm an avid amateur home gardener and I've built three raised planning boxes and I'm trying to get them filled up with your compost from the Kickapoo composting facility. I've been waiting since last spring when you halted to the sale of the public. I'm here today to get a defendant an answer. I wanted that material is going to be released to the public. Thank you. Items can't be discussed that aren't on the agenda so you can you can make your make your question known and then somebody and staff can get back to you if you want to leave your phone number with me. Allison of your back there, would you please meet with us gentlemen? Thank you very much. For the public comment. Good morning. Good morning. Mayor, City Council. I'm Garland Freeze, the president of the San Diego NAACP. Now, we receive comments and concerns from citizens of San Diego, not only just an Angelo, but from smaller cities around. It's our procedure that we respond

[0:14:39] to each one of those complaints. Naturally, not all have merit, so we do not do an investigation process. A lot of them also result in something that's not of the purview for the NAACP to handle. We do not normally air our grievances public because we use a go-through investigation process and before we talk to all parties that are concerned. I say from San Angelo, but it's actually we get complaints from smaller towns around here. Couple weeks ago, we had a concern and complaint concerning an activity to conduct it here in San Angelo. There was a ban that was scheduled to appear at one of our local nightclubs. We did not take issue with the quality of the performance or the music that was to be presented. We did take great issue with the name of the bayon. The name in itself was the mean derogatory and it specifically addressed female genitalia, which was offensive to off emails. In this case, it was particularly derogatory church, African-Americans, and members. Now, we, like I say, usually go through an investigative process that we talk to all parties concerned. In this case, we talked to the club owner,

[0:16:42] and he agreed with us that the name was offensive, And it was not a venue that he would expose to the San Angelo community. I give him great credit because he did listen to a lengthy conversation from the NAACP and he agreed with us that it was an atmosphere that he did not want to expose to the San Angelo community. Normally, that would have ended the process right there. We have another slide of the issue that we would like to discuss with the council this morning. I have with me my colleague Craig Myers, who is our co-chair of the NAACP Legal Redress Committee. And we'd like for him to speak to a proposal that we have from our unit. Thank you. Thank you. Greg Myers, also with NAACP. It was very fortunate that when the complaint was registered with the owner of the venue, that he listened carefully and, after consideration, determined that he would cancel the performance of this particular group. However, that can't always be the case. As the downtown entertainment venues increase in number and diversity is highly likely that such issues will come up again and you might not have the kind of response that we had. So we're trying to ask the council to instruct the legal folks in conjunction with any of

[0:18:45] the departments that might be involved to come up with some regulatory language that are at the very broadest end of the spectrum to not define in detail, but to describe limits of what is acceptable in public decency and the public order. The reason we say this is because the freedom of speech, which we firmly protect, we do not want in any way to declare that it's something that's offensive to you or me that reflects people's prejudice or anything else, should be limited, except when it infringes also on the well-being and the health and sensitivities seriously of particular segments in the community. In the civil rights codes of the Justice Department, it declares that there are protected groups that cannot be offended in a way that hurts their psychological or emotional well-being, or sets an attitude or environment that might be a threat to them. When a lady sent a message to the city on this, she got a little letter back that said that they don't deal with this. We're saying that it should. It's legal. People do it all over the country. And I suspect that the situation that's arising right now with the women who coming forward after years of being afraid of retaliation if they reported discrimination in terms of sexual harassment or sexual abuse, words were used to set an environment that gave people permission in their minds to do the things that they did. And so words are important, hate speech is a legal term, it has legal definition, and If you say or do anything, when you are reflecting the public

[0:20:46] welcoming of people into a commercial environment, you cannot say and do certain things that would be patently offensive or would cause difficulty for people who are coming into your public environment. So what we're asking for is that the legal department come up with some language that is reflective of things that can be complained about, and then a mechanism to process those complaints and investigate them if they have merit, and then if there is no response that's positive from the person complained against enforcement. This particular instance was on the outer edge of anything that reflects public standards of decency or respectability. Tying together a racial description with a very, very offensive genitalia description of women reflects a time in which that kind of language, and it still exists to some degree, was used as a weapon to control people, a reminder that they aren't fully human, and they cannot expect to have redress from the law and so they can stay in their place. And to lesser ways, it's a situation that we don't want to happen here. We're blessed because we have very responsive business community, and we have relationships between many groups that weren't here always. And we're very grateful for that. But we'd like to have something put into place that provides a process if this rises again. Thank you. Thank you very much. for their public comment. Good morning. My name is Annie Harding, and I live up on West 25th.

[0:22:46] And I just wanted to kind of talk about the soil out at Cuckapoo a little bit. We were raising our eight-year-old grandson, and when we got him, it takes a lot to keep a young man healthy and strong. And what we're wanting to do is just have a garden and grow our own vegetables. And we went out to talk to the man in the office about the soil, about the compost. He had no idea why he couldn't release it. He just said a directive came down and he had to abide by it. He said people had come out and been abusive to him because he had no reason for them. And I think it's unfortunate when policies are set or rules are made that have no explanation because they leave people feeling like they're not apart. And we definitely are apart. Our money is in here, our energy is in here, and it just isn't right to not let people know I give people the whole picture of something that might be going on and I just wanted to express that because I think it's important. I think why isn't always important but this time it is and we keep being told things that turn out to not happen. And it isn't right to do people that way. We're just trying to make a garden and grow vegetables for our grandson. That's all there is to it. And it's frustrating to not be able to do that and not have some mechanism of knowing why.

[0:24:51] So I just wanted to express that because it matters to us a lot. And there's nothing bad about transparency if what you're doing is the right thing. And we're just we're we're kind of left here with that. Thank you. We will address it. You're welcome. Thank you. Morning, Randall Scottie. I just want to briefly address something that maybe you can help John James out with in the Planning Department. Whenever they bring an STR up for a permit, he's bringing forward language for signage in the front yard, which does not appear anywhere that I can find in the actual article itself. What we did was we did allow a B&B's to have signage, but not STRs. So I don't know where he's getting it from. John said that he put it in there. It wasn't part of what the final draft was. I don't believe there's any opposition every single time they're having to make a motion on the planning commission to delete it. And And so it's just repetitious and they've done it every single time they've approved one. So again, I don't think there's any disagreement on it. It's just, I don't know what kind of help he needs to clean up the language. So we could take care of that, it'd be a lot easier on everybody. Thank you.

[0:26:54] Morning Council, my name is Steve Hampton. I like to pick up where this, I'm glad I waited. I like this lady's comment, transparency is, it's not a bad thing. And I think transparency is being avoided somewhat in your consent agenda. We continue to use that. I have five items on this consent agenda that I would like to hear the presentation on. of your councilman recently commented in a broadcast that you interviewed broadcast that things that are things can be but sometimes budgeted things that doesn't mean you have to spend them. That's not a direct quote. I kind of messed that up. So there are things on this consent agenda that I would like to hear presentations on. They would be C, D, E, and F and G, five things. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Is there further public comment? If not, we will move on into the regular agenda. I mean, sorry, the consent agenda. At this point I will ask each starting with Billy if there's anything you would like to pull off the consent agenda. Yes, Mayor, I would like to pull off C, the F and G. Lane, didn't say E. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I don't know.

[0:28:55] Harry. Hi, am I? Tommy. I'm ma'am. All right. to pull items C, D, E, F, G, and I off of the consent agenda for regular discussion. And we will also item L at this point will not be up for this, will be pulled off of the consent agenda not to be discussed but to be eliminated. So at this point what I need from council is a motion to approve from the consent agenda items A, B, H, and K. Move. Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. And with that, we will start with discussion on item C. Morning, Mayor, Council. I can give a brief description and then hopefully answer any questions that you may have. So currently we have a, the City of St. Angel has a contract with the Upper Colorado River Authority. That contract states that we will provide 500 acre feet of water annually from our system. The contract also states that additional 500 acre feet will be available if OC Fisher has water. Right now, UCRA, which Chuck Brown is here to answer any questions, they all may have with him directly. They have contracted for that 500 acre feet from our system, and what they're looking to do or what we are proposing with this contract is to basically back up that additional 500 acre feet from OC Fisher until OC Fisher has the water

[0:30:58] for them to use. Do I have questions from Council Billy? Don't have any questions, Lane, Tommy, Gary. With that, do we have a motion for approval of item C? I would like to make a motion that we approve item C. Okay. Public discussion? Steve Hampton. So does that, are Are we saying that they will not take out the 500 from OC Fisher, but that will be checked out later? Is that what we're saying? Or is it going to be forgiven because of the act of God? I don't quite understand. I'll assume would you address or check or check either one, please? Let me go back and talk to us about some of these. Are you Chuck Brown today? Chuck Brown, Colorado River Authority, I apologize. Let's go through these water contracts one by one. In 2000, the city and UCI agreed to a contract, the city need can get as much water. The UCRA has 80,400 acre feet available yearly in the Corps of Engineers for OC Fisher. Obviously there's not that much water in OC Fisher right now. UCRA has given the city that opportunity to use that water minus whatever we may use for resale, obviously the city's not gonna use 80,000 acre feet of water in any one given year. That option is available though. So, within that contract, the way it was written in 2000,

[0:33:03] the first few years, UCRA got 500 acre feet from the city supply to deliver to the customers outside the ETJ of the city. In the subsequent years, it was 1,000 acre feet if that water was available and up to a dish in the large end, 1,500 acre feet per year, per calendar year, which started back around 2008. as it stands right now we all know that OC Fisher went dry in 2012 and so that contract of IRs with some of our customer cities outside of the city of San Angelo reverts back to only 500 acre feet of water because that water was not available in OC Fisher for us to provide to the customers outside of the city. So what this contract does with with the city is go ahead and say okay this is going to be an even thousand acre feet that we can use OC Fisher if needed. We can use the 500 acre feet that was already assigned to us for the city. Now what you might understand is also this is not supplying any of the city of San Angelo citizens of water. This is supplying city the city of miles, Buffalo Heights which is just west of highland range west of OC Fisher. It supplies water to Red Creek. It supplies water to the Twin Buttes trailer park. It supplies water to globe energy out west of San Angel. It supplies water to the subdivision and off-walling pecans towards the south towards Cristobal. So the actual people who don't maybe pay city taxes but who indirectly pay the citizens of San Angelo, their businesses this is supplying adequate water to them as well it is and is in fact but is a regional water supply which I think we all have realized is that's something that's going to be very important to all of us so any other questions I can I can throw a couple more

[0:35:07] things out there 500 acre feet of water is a it may sound like a lot but it's 163 million gallons In doing the math, the city of St. Angelo from pre-drought to now post-drought, I did some summer runs looking at it and it's upwards of 40%. The city is using 40% less of water than they were using before the drought. The last drought of record occurred and that's in summer months and up to 25% less in the winter months. So obviously there is a significant in the city's general revenue fund per year because of water sales, the operation and maintenance of the city's water utilities is not at a loss. It's a constant, you're gonna pay for that operation and maintenance every year. This would help the city obtain approximately another half a million dollars, and it would also provide water to the outlying citizens. So any other questions I'd be happy to ask. Chuck, let me ask you, so what you're saying is that the city of San Angel at this point does not need that water that the cities that surround us and count on city water do need the water. They are in much more need than we are. We have a reliable supply at this point. One other thing I might add is that as you see our a we tend to protect the water supply of our area and protecting me. we would rather people use water that's already in the bank that's being treated and distributed in water that may be possibly flowing into one of our water supply reservoirs. And just another quick thing, 163 million gallons a day is 11 days worth of City of San Angelo water use. So we're talking about a year's supply that we're going to be supplying these outline communities. If we looked at that in layman's terms, that would be 11 days worth of water in the summer.

[0:37:07] That's that's that's a fairly insignificant amount of water. Thank you, Allison. Do you want to add to that any other public comment? Do I have a motion for approval of item C, which is consider approving a water purchase contract with the upper Colorado River Authority to provide for an additional 500 acre feet of water per year and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. They are we already have a motion. It's uh, sorry. Yeah And so there's a vote all in favor. I any opposed motion pass moving on to item D Consider awarding RFB FS dash O1 dash 1 8 patrol utility vehicles to Jim Bass Ford of San in the amount of $434,000 per fiscal year for the purchase of 12 units with the option to purchase two additional units and authorizing the city manager doesn't need to execute any related documents. Welcome. Morning Council, Ryan Kramer, Superintendent of Fleet Services, Mr. Founswell. This item D is for the purchase of we anticipate 12 units, patrol units, 11 of which will be assigned to the police department, one will go to municipal court. Those dollar amounts are outlined there. We expect to spend just over $30,000 on those vehicles. Yes, I'd ask a question, Ryan. Would you like to speak, Harry? Thank you. I see that there's only one bidder. I'm kind of in favor of the previous mayor. I'm trying to keep things local where we can,

[0:39:07] but I'm also cognizant of the fact is that we're using taxpayers' money on this. Is there any significance in just having one bid? You know, I think there is, but in this particular example, let me point out that we have only four reasonable options for patrol vehicles. One of those is a Dodge vehicle, two are Ford's and one is a Chevrolet. And so if you look at it that way, there's not really a lot of options to start with. And so if our local area chooses to offer us what they did, in this case, the Ford Explorer model, if I may, then it's kind of what we have. That being said, we could have received some outside vendors outside of our local area. And for whatever reason, they did not bid on this item. there could have been other local, excuse me, other Ford vendors, and they did on the other bids that we'll look at shortly, but not on this one. In this case, the price is very comparable to what we have seen and is lower than some purchasing co-ops that we see out there, so the price at this point is a very confident price. So there was an RFP? RFP, yes, ma'am. Do I have any questions, Billy, would you like? Ryan, my question is how do you determine or what determines that a vehicle should be taken out of service and an additional vehicle purchase? We do have several criteria. The main criteria that at least gets that vehicle onto our radar to begin investigating is its age or mileage. After that, we do begin to look at cost, operating costs, cost per mile driven is the key factor So once we start seeing the cost per mile of that unit increase we start looking at it harder and we try to keep those on our on our list and on our radar for an upcoming budget year which is now the time.

[0:41:08] And so we kind of group those the best that we can. Do I have anyone else who would like to ask a question of Ryan? Do I have a motion? A move. A second. A second. Do I have public comment on item D? Steve Hampton. What is the total amount of cars that we have in our, you know, addressing the, I come up with $36,000 a piece. I want to know exactly how many cars we have that are used, used in this way in our fleet. And also, the state also has a way to purchase this. How does this price compare to what the state is? We can get through the state. I think it was stated that we put out an RFP on this item. Yes, but it didn't say that we sent it to the state. Does that automatically go to the state? I think that's part of the purchasing co-op, if I understand it correctly. Correct. We don't go to the state. It's a it's a purchasing co-op. As Brian mentioned a little while ago, even these prices that came are actually a little bit lower than what those co-ops were offering at this point as well. So we don't I mean we don't go to the state to see if I'm not sure exactly what you're asking there, but we don't go to the state for purchases. The cop troller doesn't have a purchasing or they you can go through and purchase cars, vehicles? They have the process that they follow, as far as the state of Texas, probably quite similar to what we use as well. But we have our own way of purchasing our vehicles and policies that we follow as well. But we don't purchase vehicles from the state,

[0:43:09] the state has also purchased from, I mean, the state doesn't produce vehicles before, so. And I thought they might get a volume discount because they're purchasing for even even greater pool. Thank you very much. Ryan, do you have anything to add to that conversation? I mean, that's spot on. We buy vehicles direct from a bender or manufacturer. So the state does what they wish to do for purchasing, for highway patrol, for example, perhaps, if that was what was being asked. But there are purchasing cooperatives as well that we can source through. But again, our pricing is extremely competitive. So what you're saying to us today is that we are in need of these 12 units because of the level of maintenance that is currently occurring with these vehicles and the cost of maintaining is greater than purchasing new cars with warranties. And these come with warranties I'm assuming. We do evaluate the options that are specified in the bids. Depending on the vehicle and the price of the warranty, the extended warranty I should say we might let to purchase that warranty or we might not. In this case these vehicles come with a three-year warranty then that's what we'll stick with. Obviously we as a community as citizens and taxpayers want to make sure in fact that we don't have a lot of unnecessary brand new cars out there on the streets unless they're required and necessary, correct? That's correct. In this case for patrol vehicles we have approximately 100 marked patrol units in our police department, and of those units, I actually need to replace quite a few more than this this year, but this is what budget will allow, and so we're going to be as selective as we can to get the vehicles off the road that are costing us the most money right now. Okay. Thank you. Mayor. May I ask a question? Thank you. So Ryan, what is the average age of the vehicles that we would be taking off this year?

[0:45:12] For specifically the patrol vehicles? The patrol vehicles. approximately six years for the the vehicles that we have now we have a range of different types of vehicles and so we watch that very carefully the cars that we're driving don't last as long as the SUVs do and so as those begin to trickle through their age and mileage we watch that very closely but the cars that are being pulled out now are approximately six years old and have roughly a hundred thousand miles on the average we auction those off I know that there've been auctions in the past so do we auction the police vehicles off yes ma'am we're required by the state to fully strip those vehicles so that they in no way indicate that it's a patrol vehicle and then we do auction them off through our contracted auctioneer and that goes back into your budget when it goes back into a 501 fund which is equipment replacement thank you do we use blue book on that or do we take whatever do we have a minimum price that we attach to this during an auction we lean heavily on our auctioneer and we have seen data throughout our term with this auctioneer as well as in the past our auctioneer has been doing this for a long time and definitely recommends to us where he sees the vehicle cell and if we should place minimums but most often what we see on a vehicle like this nothing special about this we see that we get fewer beds if we have a reserve that's set too high. So generally we'll start a vehicle such as a patrol vehicle, a stripped patrol vehicle at about a thousand dollars and it'll go up from there. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions of Ryan? Do I have a motion? A move. A second. Second. Okay. All in favor of approving item D say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. We will move on to item E which is consider awarding RFB FS-04-18 medium pickups to Jim Bassford, San Angel, Texas

[0:47:20] and the amount of $160,000 per fiscal year for the purchase of four units with the option to purchase two additional units and authorizing the city manager or designee to execute any related documents, Ryan. This is the bid for medium and heavy-duty pickups. We generally classify these as three-quarter and one-time pickups just for consistency sake so that we can keep track of that better. In this case, we are looking at purchasing four units, four various divisions, including the water and general funds. And for units, we expect to come in less obviously than the $160,000 per fiscal year mark, but will allow us to replace again for much needed units. Do I have questions from the council? How many new vehicles did we purchase last year for the same purpose? medium and heavy duty trucks throughout the year and I would need to go back and look to verify that but a handful half a dozen or so. Do I have a motion? Move to maintenance schedule. Lane would you like to speak? Yes. Do you does it look like we'll have like a rolling schedule per year? The way that our equipment replacement looks right now is we're so far behind that we are picking them off as we can. We definitely find the worst units and within our budget we replace those as we can the years next year and the year after to see. You'll see me about this time most likely every year unless we can utilize the current bid that's in place and in this case that's what we'll do. The bidding and the auctioning off of the vehicles that we're replacing is that already coming off the total cost that we're seeing here, the 160 in expecting from last year's sales or how

[0:49:27] do you say it goes back into a fund? Sir, in theory, that's correct. We do budget for revenues from auction proceeds each year, and those expected revenues are budgeted in expense as well, and so we spend based on what we expect to receive. It may overlap years, but you know, any remaining that we don't spend rolls into our fund balance for five out of one. Mayor. Yes, sir. Could I clarify, please? Councilman, this is the gross cost. It is not a net cost. Those proceeds went in as part of the funding source for this, but this is not reduced by an expected amount of proceeds from the vehicles that are being replaced. Okay. This is the amount of the checks. This is certainly not budgeting. Pardon me. We are proving is the purchase, not the process of the budget. Right. And what I want to, it sounded like he was asking if it is a net value, it is not. I was kind of asking if this 160 is already cut down from the proceeds of vehicles replaced from last year into that fund. So say that it should have been 185, but proceeds from the auctioning has already cut that down to 160. That kind of is that correct and what I'm saying is no, this is the total cost, okay? Yeah, it's the purchasing not the budgeting of where revenue comes from and costs So now do I have a motion Any public comment no public comment we'll take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes item f Consider awarding RFBFS-02-18 half-ton pickups to Jim Bass Ford, San Angel, Texas, and the amount of $365,000 per fiscal year for the purchase of 12 units with the option to purchase two additional units and authorizing the city manager a designee

[0:51:28] to execute any related documents. Ryan, you're on again. And this purchase request is for 12 units that we spread across the general funds, water funds, sewer fund, stormwater funds, in this case, 12 units to replace, again, the aged equipment that we need to pull out for high maintenance costs. On each one of these, it has been designated that there are additional units that could be purchased. What's a decision-making process that determines whether we purchase the additional units? you for asking. Various things could cause this. For example, a total loss of a vehicle, whether or fault or someone else's. If we have a vehicle that is in an accident, a fire or any other case that would render it out of service, then through our risk fund we are funded for that vehicle. And so we try to re-equip our departments with that vehicle because of that loss. And so that would be as an unexpected additional unit in this case. So emergency only generally the other option is if we're directed to create a new division, a new crew, a new system within our divisions where we are needing additional unexpected unbudgeted originally units. But of course we can't spend it without the budget once it's designated. Does Council have any additional questions for Ryan on this item? If not, may I have a motion move a second. Is there any public comment on item F? If not, we'll take a vote all in favor. I opposed motion passes Item G consider awarding RFB FS dash 03 dash 1 8 quarter-tonne pickups to Jim Bass San Angel, Texas, in the amount of $70,000 per fiscal year for the purchase of two units with the option to purchase one additional unit and authorizing the city manager to execute

[0:53:32] any related documents. Ryan? This item is for the purchase of small pickups. We define them as quarter-time pickups because we need a good designation, but this is the size of pickup as a Chevy Colorado, a Nissan Frontier, Toyota Tacoma, et cetera. We generally put these types of vehicles in departments that do not need to haul but perhaps have a shovel that needs to go in the back of a pickup and we use these for their cost effectiveness and purchase as well as their efficiencies and maintenance costs. So these two will actually be assigned to water billing for the replacement of two of their units that have exceeded their life expectancy. Do I have questions from Council? I have a general question Ryan. I know we have these amounts. Are these firm amounts are what if, for instance, this item G, the amount of purchase goes over the $70,000 and say it's $72,000 or $73,000. What is the process to deal with that additional cost? I believe, are you speaking directly to the budget of that additional cost? Well, we are proving, as I understand it, for instance, item G, the expenditure of $70,000. So if that goes over $70,000, do you come back before the council to get additional approval for overages or what happens? Julie Julia could tell me that we have the option to spend 25% over that. This state allows us to spend 25% over. OK. All right. Thank you. but these were, let me ask you a question, was there an RFP, I asked this again, put out, and these are the prices that came back from the vendor or Jim Bassford in this case, so there would be no reason to be going over 25% of this price because you've already done an RFP which said these people

[0:55:32] said they could produce these items at this price, correct? That's correct, I think the only time that could happen is if we bought more units than what I have described here, so two plus the one, if we needed for some reason, the fourth, then at that point, if we were over the 25 or our council's purview, we would be back to you. But these are RFPs. These are the prices that came in, correct? That's correct. The price won't change. Mayor, could I ask you actually receive bids for $70,000? No, not $70,000. $70,000 is our estimate for the purchases, depending on the options that are needed at the time. That's right. I wanted that clear because I heard the mayor say, these are the amounts bid. This is not the amount- Yes, that's what I said. I apologize, I misunderstood, but no ma'am, the amounts bid do not add up directly to $70,000. The $70,000 mark will be slightly high, we hope, so that we're not missing an option that is needed for example, one additional unit if that were to come up. Then how did you come up with that number? Sure. The items that we need to purchase for this year, We bid two options on vehicles in the quarter-ton category. One is an extended cab vehicle. One is a crew cab vehicle. The items that were offered to us by Jim Bass Ford was a Nissan Frontier extended cab at $18,677 with the options that are shown on your bid tab. So depending on what our divisions might need in the future, for example, we would select those options. In this case, those options are not needed, so we're buying the base vehicle as it sits without options. So $18,677 times 2 equals the $37,354 that we expect to spend now. The one additional unit would cover the remainder in those funds. So that $70,000 gears us for the one additional if we had to have it, but we anticipate not

[0:57:37] needing it. The dollar amount, just to be clear, the dollar amount of $70,000 is to purchase two units, including one additional if necessary. And that's what the $70,000 is. It's not $70,000 for two vehicles and an additional amount later on if one more is needed. $70,000 is the maximum amount of dollars we're approving for the purchase of maximum potential three items. That is correct. Yes, ma'am. Any other further comments from council? I don't remember. Do I have a motion? Then may I have one? Don't move. And a second. Okay. Is there any public comment on item G? If not, we will take a vote. I've got one. When I appreciate the interest that has been shown in these, I think this is very important to kind of evaluate. evaluate y'all many of you are new and don't understand all the ins and outs and of the purchasing system and I appreciate it and I I need to I need to be comforted in some of this and I appreciate it thank you thank you Steve any other further comment if not we'll take a vote all in favor of item G hi any opposed item G passes. I believe now we go on to item I, am I correct. Item I consider proving tax increment reinvestment zone tears money incentive funding for one private project in the North tears area for the property 800 North Chabern totaling $29,996.25 and 25 cents John you're on. Thank you. John James Director of Planning and Development Services. This is a tiers grant request.

[0:59:38] We have twice a year a program where business owners within the tiers can request funding for everything from facade improvements to landscaping and other types of improvements to their properties. This is one that came through in the North tiers area. They had originally requested about $46,000 for the property. The Tears Board recommended funding about $29,000, almost $30,000 of that. It included repaving the parking lot, additional landscaping in the parking lot, removing an existing dilapidated sign, and then installing a new sign poll in its place. The one element that the Tears Board did not recommend funding was the sign face itself. And that's something they've recommended on a number of cases. Basically, their logic is they don't want to pay for a sign for a business that may go out of business and then the sign face is not usable anymore, but they were comfortable funding the sign structure itself and asking the business to pay for the sign face. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Does Council have any questions for John? Bill, do you? I have one, yes. John, some time back, there was a request for tears and it was for paving, repaving a parking lot And that was denied. So why would we approve paving for this? The way that the Tears Board had recommended just a few months back, updating the policies, which you all ended up approving. And the way that policy was worded was that generally paving wouldn't be supported as a standalone project, where that was all that they were doing. But as part of a larger project like this, then it would be supportable. And so in this case, in fact, the original request did not include all of what you see today. We worked with the applicant to come back

[1:01:39] with some landscaping, making the property more aesthetic. And so with that as a package, the board was more comfortable funding it, but had the original request that was just for the sign and paving, the board was not as comfortable supporting. Thank you. Do I have any further questions for John from council? Yes, mine. Okay. So with that, do I have a motion to approve item I? So moved. A second. Public comment, please. No public comment. We will take a vote on item I. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes item J Second reading of an ordinance for Z one seven dash one four a rezoning from the single family RS one Is it approved anybody ask for it to be I don't think about it pulled that one I had it circled as being pulled Did we approve that item on previous? It was the motion did not include Jay, so we'll need a motion on Jay So do I have a motion on approving item J move a second I guess I should have read that second reading of an ordinance for Z one seven dash one for a rezoning from the single family RS one and two family RS two zoning districts to the neighborhood commercial C and zoning district are 0.74 acres located at 104 108 and 112 North Milton Street and an unaddressed track generally located North of Peca Street between North Milton Street and North Van Buren Street. Any public comment? No public comment? We will take a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. With that, I believe we are through with the consent agenda as well as discussion and approval on the items

[1:03:41] pulled from the consent agenda. We will now move into the regular agenda. The first item is Consider, Approval and Public Hearing of the 2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, called CAPER, and we will have a presentation by Bob Salud. Good morning, Mayor and Council. I think is this ready to go? Yes. The caper is a HUD annual requirement that is due into the year, and it is required to be on the regular agenda. It covers both CDBG and the Home Investment Partnership grants for the 2016 program year, and spans October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. The main purpose is to outline expenditures of funds to identify accomplishments and address key interest items such as affordable housing and homelessness. The report is somewhat detailed and it covers resources and accomplishments, geographic distribution funds, affordable housing for homeless and special needs, barriers to affordable housing, lead based payment and citizen participation, just to name a few of the items that we cover in that report. Here's a snapshot of the year's resources. You can see that we received a little over 794,000 CDBG, a little over two 77 in home funds, and we expended 791,000 CDBG at 248,000 of home funds. So we're pretty active in expenditures, making sure our products move right along. The next few slides kind of cover our major accomplishments. They really need to be identified for the public. We completed 31 home owner rehabs.

[1:05:43] We completed 49 emergency housing repairs, worked over 3,400 code compliance cases and neighborhoods that we targeted for revitalization. We made our annual payment to the section 108 loan for a producer's park. We assisted 13 families with down payment and closing costs to purchase their first home. We assisted 30 special needs individuals with rental payments through MHMR, and our Choto, a Galaxy DC, constructed four new homes using home funds. These are the non-federal grant funded accomplishments. We weatherized 16 homes through the ADNA's grant. Six families were assisted with gap financing through the purchase of new homes through the Coase of DC program. We paid for 28 indigent individuals to be cremated. And 16 homeless individuals were provided permanent housing. Most of those were from Camp Hope, near Central High School, the living under the bridge. If you recall that, at that time when they were camping out, we actually got most of those into permanent housing. And we did follow our citizen participation plan, just like any federal government that does require a plan. we did that. It does include open meetings like this, advertising and average set of times, for example, and then we provided copies throughout the city, including recreation centers, libraries and other places, and we're asking council to approve it to make a set of time. Describe the difference between CDBG funds and home funds. There's just two different grants. CDBG is our main grant that It does it's much more flexible and it allows us to do various things, not just housing.

[1:07:47] The home grant is strictly housing and housing related activities, those are the biggest differences. You can see we used CDBG funds to develop the producers park, for example. We can use CDBG funds for public services. We used to provide funds for boys and girls club, for example. We, since our funds have been cut so much, we've kind of eliminated the public services programs and we kind of focus even on housing and housing related items as well. So that's kind of what we're doing now. Do I have questions or comments for Bob from Council? Yes, Harry. Just make a comment. How much I appreciate Bob and his group on code compliance. He's done a couple three neighborhood blitzes in my district in the last three or four months. It helps the neighborhood. It helps the neighbors. They really believe that the city is trying to help them clean up the neighborhood, so I certainly appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for the comment. Questions? Do I need a motion on this? Move. A second. Any public comment on item A of the regular agenda? Steve? Steve Hampton. I, through a reliable source, heard a tale about a city employee who, through neglect, became homeless and was assisted through this program, funded or non-funded, I don't know. I wanted, I would like for Bob to tell us what are the rules and the governess kind of a situation briefly. Bob, can you come forward and answer that, please? Sure, which program, but I believe it's the Rapid Rehousing. Unfortunately, that was a one-time shot. We had some money that came from a cell of a house

[1:09:50] through the Coase of DC program, the Affordable Housing Program, the Half Sun Sales Tax. And with the residual funds, we allocated, I believe, 40,000 for Rapid Rehousing. And I believe that's what it was. And, of course, they have to be homeless. They have to be, they can be making so much income, their limit on the amount of income. And how is that? It's, well, it was, it's, I'm trying to figure out the number, but it's usually, it's 50% of area medium income. That's what that is. It's pretty low, to be honest with you. but they have to have stayed with the Salvation Army. In other words, if you're homeless, we tell people to go to the Salvation Army first. So we got our referrals from them. And that's how that works out. That ensures that the person is actually his homeless. You have to stay at a shelter. You have no place to go other than the streets. So we received those recommendations. We vetted them. We vet them through our procedure. And then we found them a hotel for a month until the Public Housing Authority was able to provide them a voucher for permanent housing. And that's how that worked. And PHA did a standing job. They provided 10 vouchers right off. And then they added another 10 for another year. So it was great timing. It was great participation, great partnerships with Salvation Army, Public Housing Story of the City. When the permanent housing occurred, that means that that person then picked up the cost of his housing expense? Yes, yes ma'am. Public housing now pays them for and so they can get back on their feet. And the idea is that we have, they go through job training, through we have a part of a homeless coalition, I guess I should mention that. This thing was derived from that coalition meetings we held.

[1:11:53] We have monthly meetings with coalition members. So we kind of work with those members to ensure that the services are provided, including job training and pretty much anything else. MHM targets involved, they have mental issues, ADAG gets involved, they've got alcohol problems as well, so it certainly is a group effort. Thank you. Further public comment? No further public comment? We will take a vote. All in favor of approving. item A on the regular agenda say I. Any opposed? Motion passes. We will now move to item B, appeal of the planning commission's denial of a conditional use to allow for short-term rental on property which backs onto Lake Nazworthy on .81 acres located at 2045 American Legion Road. John you're on. Thank you. John James, Director of Planning and Development Services. This item is a request for conditional use for a short-term rental. You can see the location there, American Legion Road, just off of Knickerbacher, adjacent to the lake. It is, as I said, near Lake Nazwerty, just a little less than an acre. These do go to the Planning Commission. They're the final authority, unless it's appealed, in this case the Planning Commission denied the request for conditional use by a three to two vote and the applicant has appealed that to you. Here's the future land use of the area is neighborhood and the zoning is single family residential. This is just a little bit larger view of the lake area and where this subject property sits. Pictures this is the street that doesn't really show you a whole lot but you can see the parking lot

[1:13:57] over here for the church and then in this picture over here the homes are off to the right on this picture over here. Quite a few pictures here I'm going to go through fairly quickly. This is looking basically from the property to the church and then looking at the driveway back towards the property itself. These are just a few pictures of the home as well as the out building. I should mention that there are there's an out building and then the main house but under our rules with the single-family zoning, the entire property has to be rented as one single unit, one single short-term rental if this is approved. So they could not rent the main house and the guest house separate, it would all have to be rented as one unit. Just looking at inside the guest house and then the backyard, this is looking to the neighbor, there is a residential neighbor in one direction, in the other direction, I don't think we have a picture of it, you'll see it on the photo. One of the rationales that staff is recommending approval of this is that it does act as a transition between the non-residential properties to the north and the residential subdivisions. This is basically the last residential lot, even though the zoning for residential continues towards Knickerbocker, those lots are actually currently used as parking, overflow parking for the church. So while on one side of this property is a home, on the other side is a parking lot. And we felt that that made for a good transition. Had this been deeper into the neighborhood, staff might have had a different recommendation, but being at basically the beginning of this neighborhood, we felt more comfortable with it. Any traffic coming to and from this home would have no reason to drive by the other homes. They could get to this site and from this site from Knickerbocker without going deeper into the neighborhood.

[1:15:58] It does meet all of the ordinance requirements for short-term rentals. They would have to get a change of occupancy for the site. And as you know from the short-term rental ordinance, that requires a fire inspection and meeting a number of other requirements for that type of occupancy. They do have sufficient area on the site for parking. You'll see one of the concerns from the neighbors one of the reasons it was denied by the Planning Commission was concerns about traffic and parking. They do have sufficient room on the site to meet the standards of the ordinance for parking, however. We did send out and I'll have an update to this. When we prepared this slide, we had sent out our six notices to the surrounding properties within 200 feet. We had received none in favor in 16 in opposition. However, a flood of letters came in over the weekend and yesterday. To date, we've received 60 letters of support 19 against so change this to 60 and 19. Most of those are from outside the 200 foot notification area. We did not receive any letters of support from within the 200 feet right here although we did receive one opposition from within so most of the in favor and most of the opposition were from outside the 200 feet, not from the adjacent neighbors. You can see a lot of those are from this area. The immediate neighborhood was where a number of the opposition letters came from. The concerns that were raised at the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and in the letters, reduced property values, parking and traffic, I mentioned noise and vandalism from the transient renters in those properties and then just cleanliness, trash those kinds of things that are left behind by short-term renters. The recommendations that come to you against staff did recommend approval of this. However,

[1:18:04] the Planning Commission did deny it on a 3-2 vote. Staff did recommend seven conditions of approval if you choose to approve it. As I mentioned, only one single family dwelling, they can't rent out the separate building separately. They would require a change of occupancy. Three is really a restatement one maintaining all the required parking. This recommendation, as Mr. Scotty mentioned earlier in the public comment, is maximum of one unlit sign, no more than six square feet in size. That's the requirement that applies to bed and breakfast. However, as he noted, the Planning Commission has consistently eliminated that and instead recommended no no signage whatsoever. Staff is supportive of that, and so we would recommend that you consider changing condition five if you approve this to no exterior signage. I think as Mr. Scotty mentioned, that was initially the conversations when the short-term rental ordinance came to council. However, the final draft of the ordinance did not include that prohibition on signage. And I think moving forward, given the recommendations of the Planning Commission, we would, until we can update that ordinance, we will move forward with future requests with that as a standard condition to have no signage for these short-term rentals. Again, some of these are just restatements, maintain consistency with all short-term rental ordinance requirements, whether or not you include that as a condition, it will be condition because it's in the ordinance and then no commercial outdoor storage would be allowed on the property. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'd like to ask one question is we have made it very obvious there's a big deficit between a bed and breakfast and an STR so why would there even be something on here about an unlit sign I'm totally confused because bed and

[1:20:04] breakfast we require somebody to live on premises right that's right so an STR no one lives on premise that's correct so why would it be included here well again the way the ordinance was drafted right now if if we don't include a signage provision they would be allowed a larger sign and it could be a lit sign and so we recognize that when we brought this forward and decided in keeping with what we thought was the intent of City Council and the Planning Commission was to more or strictly limit the signage. As I said, the Planning Commission heard another short-term rental case yesterday, and they made it clear, at least in their opinion, there should be no signage for short-term rentals. And so, again, we would recommend changing this condition number five to say no signage would be allowed for a short-term rental. In any residential area, is anyone allowed to put out a sign that would be used for commercial or lease? Hey, John, I can answer that question. Our code of ordinance is actually in section 12.04.05 called on-site regulations as non-residential use is allowed within residential zoning district shall be allowed signage according to following regulations and then it provides regulations related to area height number and setback. So we have to require if there is a non-residential use in a residential area at least one sign as long as it meets those requirements which is why I think John said that if we allowed the sign that they're entitled to under that provision it would be a bigger sign than what this is providing for. The other issues you said it had to be approved for fire and what was the other? Just a change of occupancy, so there would be a fire inspection, building inspections to ensure that they made the special requirements for codes for a transient occupancy like a short-term rental. But there's no limitations in terms of the number of individuals that at any one given

[1:22:04] time could spend the night there? There is the normal single family restriction that applies in single family zoning meaning no more than, normally it's no more than four unrelated individuals. The short-term rental ordinance was adopted changing that to six unrelated individuals. But so for example, if a fraternity group of eight guys that are all unrelated wanted to rent this, that would technically be in violation. So a two-bedroom home that advertises that 22 people can spend the night there. That would be inviolish. That would be illegal. So one can't put a property, one can put a property for sale whenever they want to obviously, but they cannot guarantee that X number of people over and above six can spend the night there. And how do we regulate that? As with most of our code enforcement, that would be on a complaint basis. And so if we received a complaint that there was an occupancy exceeding the limits, and I should add that the ordinance also limits it to no more than two adults per bedroom. So in your example of a two bedroom, that would limit it to four adults. Now they could add kids to that as well, but enforcement would just be on a complaint basis. We have no other way to control it. Well, actually, the one other way would be the short-term rentals, the council decided that they shouldn't be permanently granted. And so if a conditional use is granted, it has to be re-heard and either granted or did not again after a year, then after that first year it becomes every two years. And so the idea behind that was if there are problems at a particular residence, it would come up for review at least at the end of a year. And so let's say, for example, we get complaints that there are too many people staying and they're having parties and being

[1:24:06] loud. But for whatever reason, we're not able to enforce against that just because they're only there for maybe two days. But if we get constant complaints like that, that would be something that the Planning Commission and you all could use to decide when they came up for renewal of the conditional use, you could say, no, we've seen too many problems at this address and not renew their conditional use, and again, that's one of the reasons we included that renewal process. And let me just ask, so if one has their property for sale and we grant them the right to have an STR, when they sell that property, the STR does not automatically go with the property. does as the ordinance was established partly because of when again when this was discussed by the council we discussed the option of applying the conditional use just to the current owner and if they sold the property the new owner would have to reapply for the conditional use and at the time the decision was made that because it's going to come up for renewal anyway that allowing it to transfer to a new owner would be allowed. this is in your district would you like to comment several questions John I'm back to the I have driven by there several times I want I want to be perfectly clear for myself I noticed that the property is for sale there is a for sale sign out in front so to the mayor's question just then if that property sells let's just say within 90, 120 days then there's the remaining eight or nine months that whomever buys the property could use it rented as an STR and then we would have the it would come back to us after that first year or goes back to the planning

[1:26:07] commission. It would go back to the planning commission but again either the applicant or a neighboring citizen could appeal that to you all whichever way they they decide, but the initial decision maker is the planning commission. OK, and so I think you addressed some of my other questions. Everything is done on a complaint basis. There's no, let's just say no active enforcement or eyes looking on the situation, if in fact it's being used as the short term rental. You all would respond on a complaint basis. But for the ones that you have currently, STRs that are currently, I'm gonna make an assumption here. So I want you to counter this if I am absolutely wrong. I'm gonna make the assumption that if you have a complaint, by the time you get to address the complaint, probably the renters are gone. Is that an accurate statement? Very likely if I would assume many of these are occurring on the weekends. We don't typically have staff that are on call for those kinds of complaints on the weekends or evenings when a lot of these type of complaints. That's not to say that we haven't sent people out, but yeah, if we got a call on a, like I say, a Friday evening, very likely no one would go out to take a look at it until Monday, at which point the renters may be gone. Only time that differs is we've had ones where there were parking concerns or those kind of things, so they call PD. So if they call PD in that case, we will have a record of something going on. And I'll follow up on that. The police have responded to things like noise complaints. So some of the violations that we hear complaints about or illegal parking in the street, kinds of things, those are things that the police can sometimes address as well. Was there any conversation? I didn't see, I've watched the Planning Commission meeting

[1:28:08] and I didn't see any. So let me see if I miss something. One question I have, we have a parking lot right next door. So they could conceivably, were church not being held on a Sunday or some church-wide event. They could conceivably park in that church parking lot. Was that discussed at the planning commission meeting? Don't recall that being dismissed now. I didn't see it in there. So they could utilize it, they could get off the street by utilizing the church parking lot right next door. Yes, but again, they do meet the parking standards of the ordinance and they do have a really long driveway. So I think it would be, and I think the applicants can probably speak to this better than I can, but on that particular property, we think that it would be rare that there would be overflow out into the street. It's all for now, Mayor. Did you have a comment? Comments. Tommy made a comment about not being able to monitor short-term rental. Well, we don't monitor a long-term rental or an RS-1 or an RS-2 either. I mean, typically, if you've got problems with a neighbor, you do call the police department, regardless of what time of the day or which day of the week it is. I think from that perspective, whether it's an STR or a long-term rental or whatever. John, you talked about the length of this particular drive. If we stay with the standard, I don't know how many bedrooms this particular place has, but two adults per bedroom to a maximum of six adults and then whatever children. We should never have more than about three or four cars at any one particular STR. Is that an accurate statement? I would say it's not an accurate statement because they could rent it for the weekend and invite 60 of their favorite friends from San Angel come over and have a party with them that night.

[1:30:09] Well, you can't stay overnight though. No, but you can create a parking situation where a number of hours and they could leave it two o'clock in the morning. You get 300 feet on a driveway though, Mayor, I don't think that's going to overflow into the street. Let me just clarify one thing. you set up to a maximum of six, but that maximum of six is unrelated people. So a family reunion type event, you know, you could have related people more than that stay. But again, it is still limited to the two per bedroom, so that's going to limit it. There are also some limits in the total number of people on the side, particularly after certain hours. And so again, we tried to address those type of concerns, that's not to say that there couldn't be a situation where there are many more cars than that. I can read the actual provision to you. It's permitting or hosting an outdoor gathering before 7 a.m. or after 10 30 p.m. or permitting or hosting any outdoor gathering to include more than 20 people attending at one time as prohibited. When I know that council approved the rules and regulations if you will on short-term rentals, how long ago was that? That was January of this year, almost to the one-year mark, which is relevant because those that were operating, already operating, had one year to come in and apply for these conditional uses. And so that's why you're starting to see a number of them come through right now. So starting in January, anyone that had an STR has to come and get a new approval on it? That's correct. After January, I believe it's January 16th, but plus or minus a day or two, then any that are currently operating without a conditional use would be in violation. So because it has been a year is, and this, I might not be able to ask this, but I'm going to ask it, and then you can tell me to be quiet if I need to be. So it would seem to me that with all of the issues that continually come up with STRs,

[1:32:13] that this council as a new council should in fact re-review the policy and look to make make sure that this council approves what was last approved and look to make necessary changes that have obviously come up as time has gone by. I guess the first answer I would answer that is it's always your discretion to review ordinances. Staff believes that this was an effective compromise ordinance that tried to balance the interest of those who are concerned about short-term rentals with the interest of those who want to use their property for short-term rentals. So I think we've got a good compromise ordinance in place, but it's always at the council's discretion to bring that back for reconsideration. But of course, this property owner would have the right, for example, to lease this property out for six month or a year versus a short-term rental property. That's correct. A short-term rental is defined by the ordinance, as well as state law as anything less than 30 days. If they're renting it for more than 30 days, then it's just a home rental like any other home rental. Gary? Yes, a couple other questions that I may have on this are clarifications and certainly the proponent and the people that oppose this will come pretty quickly. This particular couple, by looking at the background information is getting ready to invest about three quarters of a million dollars in San Angelo at a property that they're gonna make a bed for breakfast. That's one of the reasons that they're actually looking at what they can do with the property that they have at the lake. They've already invested thousands of dollars to bring this property up to standard. And quite honestly, don't think you're gonna risk having parties at these places to risk your income. So I make those two statements and I'll let people come to the comp to the microphone here in a

[1:34:16] second. I guess the other thing that I'd be concerned about is is the number of people both pro and con that are outside of this neighborhood that had input on this. I mean the bottom line is that if you've only got one one individual in in the neighborhood and within the 200-foot range that has issues with this, then maybe we don't have a specific problem. Maybe we're anticipating that something may happen, but we don't know what it is. Do you review those numbers in terms of four against? Yeah, again, there was one against in the 200 feet, but there were a number in what I would call in the neighborhood outside the 200 feet, and those were within about 1,500 feet. And then, like I said, we've received about 60 letters of support. All of those are from outside the immediate area. Does Council have any further questions of John? Do you, Lane? All what ifs aside from this basis, can you go back to that other slide we were just looking at? of conditions it was gone through playing commission it was denied it was denied because of these conditions well not based on our ordinance does does this take your situation comply with that ordinance 100% as is well yes it complies with all of the standards or will comply with all the standards of the ordinance or they won't get their occupancy permit. However, the reason it was made a conditional use was to give the Planning Commission and you all the ability to have a case-by-case review looking at

[1:36:18] traffic patterns, the surrounding neighborhood, the thoughts of neighbors, and so on the one hand it does meet all of these standards outlined in the ordinance but with a conditional use you all have discretion to approve or deny it or place additional conditions on it as you see fit. That's what I've seen from the Planning Commission. They were more concerned about the traffic in that area. These were the four items that were raised in the public hearing. The one specifically mentioned by Planning Commissioners as they were making their motion was the parking and traffic and I think that was it now obviously they heard a lot of input from the the public hearing and don't always necessarily specifically say this is why we're voting yes or no but these were the the main items brought up by the citizens in the public hearing and so probably affected the Planning Commission's vote. Would you bring back up the conditional uses screen please? Yeah. And again, we recommend eliminating that too or revising that to say no signage. So if we have a motion, we would make a motion that in fact said that motion would be inclusive of the recommended conditions with the elimination of item five. That would be instead of eliminating five. If your intent is to not allow signage, it would be to reword number five to not allow signage. Council have further questions of John I mean concern my main concern bringing that up if it fits the ordinance is everyone recalls when we voted on this in January I was against that ordinance because it's at standards where it would be a lot of what ifs come in and we're seeing this now so that's why I asked

[1:38:19] what ifs aside. If it fits the ordinance, that's our predicament now. Do we want to set precedence on picking and choosing? We have this ordinance in place. If we need to review it, there might be a time for that. But right now we have a city ordinance in place where if we have a case come up such as this, if it's fitting, then I see no problem on pushing it through. if you're going and picking and choosing if the parking is not right or just basis of what ifs then you know we're setting that precedence if we're going to go against our ordinances or not. So do these staff recommended conditions exist for all previously approved STRs or are these specific ones that other STRs have not had to follow? These are our typical recommended conditions. I can't say that the other STRs that have been approved are exactly the same as this, but for the most part, this is a standard list of conditions we will be recommending on all short-term terminals. So if we pick and choose what is recommended, then in essence we are picking and choosing what was voted in as the original ordinance. Well, again, the whole purpose of a conditional use in the ordinance is allowing you to place conditions on each of these and they can be different based on their location and impacts to neighbors. So for example, if there was an offense between this property and the neighbor, you could add a condition that they have to put a screening fence or unique conditions for each individual property. That's at your discretion. Billie, did you have a question or comment you wanted to make? Yes. asked Teresa if she would read again the stipulation on the number of people that could be present at an SDR. Yes ma'am it says permitting or hosting when

[1:40:24] outdoor gatherings before 7 a.m. or after 10 30 p.m. or permitting or hosting any outdoor gathering to include more than 20 people attending at one time is prohibited. So a comment was made earlier that you know say they invite 60 people over. That would be a violation. Yes, ma'am. And I believe that was discussed when we talked about STRs before that some families are larger than 20 people. Right. Okay. So that's made clear to the people, the applicants that are applying for an STR, John, this has gone through with them. They have a chance to read it all and understand, do they sign an agreement of some sort is there a contract between the owner of an STR in the city or the Planning Commission or any are you no we do make this information available to them and I think these applicants are very aware of of these requirements but there's nothing that they sign now again they're aware of this that does say they maintain consistency with all short-term rental ordinance requirements and I I think at least the ones we've dealt with thus far are aware of all of these. Most of them were involved in the process of the ordinance creation in the first place, so they know of those requirements. Thanks, Theresa. Any further questions from Council? One quick comment. Jerry, would you like to speak? Thank you. One quick comment, these are the same conditions that were on the Planning Commission yesterday that was approved for that STR. Is that correct, John? I believe so, that these are virtually the same. Right. Okay. I want to make sure that we're not changing conditions. This is what I think I read yesterday on the presentation that we made. Now, let me just point out as an example, this only one single family dwelling is allowed

[1:42:26] in the maximum of one short-term rental at a time. That's not a typical requirement that we put. It's a requirement, but the only reason we restated it for this one and one others that we did was because there are multiple buildings on the site. So we wanted to clarify and make sure the applicants knew you can't rent out the two separate buildings separately. It has to be all rented as one unit. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. And do I have a motion for item B? I move to approve with the exception of condition number five. I'll strike that. Need to modify it. Otherwise, it's going to revert back to those other signage. So you need to change it to no signs being allowed. That he is recommending approval based off of these conditions with no sign being allowed. Modified. Is there a second? I will second that motion. I have public comment morning ladies gentlemen. My name is Richard Chris. I'm one of those stars on the map there That's opposed to this You spend an enormous amount of time talking about your own Ordinance that you are the previous council past and whether or not this is consistent with that ordinance What you have an address is whether or not this str is Consistent We have the neighborhood. You've got 19 neighbors who live in the area who say we don't want this there. We don't want a commercial operation like this in the neighborhood. The 60 people who live outside the neighborhood don't live there. They're not affected by it. They're not affected by the traffic, the noise, the light, the beer cans and the bar ditches, that sort of thing. We are

[1:44:27] We're the ones who live there. We don't think it's appropriate. Planning Commission said that this would be not not the Planning Commission. The Planning Director said that they felt like this would be a good transition. We don't need a transition. We have a transition. The church has a light lodge and a parking lot and a six foot fence. That fence is the stopping point. That was put in because the city council and the neighbors wanted a a barrier between the noise and the activity of the church lake lodge and the quiet neighborhood. We don't need another transition. That's ridiculous. A lot of houses at the lake from time to time become party houses. I had one next to me for a good while. The owner's son went to ASU every Friday and every Saturday night. They had a party. Now, I am certain that most of the people who came to the party were not invited. They didn't receive anything in the mail. They showed up. But let me tell you what it's like. Now, some of you gonna remember, but some of you don't remember what parties like this are like. It'd be like a hundred ... Why'd you look at me when you sat there? I look at me. Lang will remember it. It was a very studious biology major. But imagine 50, 60, 70, 80 people in a back yard, a small back yard, close to each other, all holding a Bud Light. Now, they've been holding something besides a butt-like, but most of them had a beer in their hand. The sound level is so high that nobody can carry on a conversation in a normal tone of voice.

[1:46:29] What you have to do there is stand there and yell. Everybody is yelling. And this goes on until 12, 30, 1, 30, 2, 30. We've been had some cases of 3, 3, 4, 30. We have a three-minute limit and I forgot to say that before you started so if you could just complete your sentence, I would appreciate it and let the next person speak. Thank you. Okay. I started to call the police. I didn't because somebody yelled, let's go skinny-dipping. So I wanted to wait and see what happened before I called the police. Thank you. I was not there, Richard. We neighbors are opposed to this. Thank you. Further public comment. Good morning. My name is Billy Wood and I live out 2009 American Legion Road. We live there 21 years or opposed to this. We feel like the planning commission ruled in the right direction when they stopped the permit on this SDR neighborhood. Neighborhood is owned for single family dwelling. It's a pretty quiet neighborhood. We feel like that this was just in French in our neighborhood, and like Richard said, I would like to know how many complaints we have with the STRs we have now. I keep hearing about all these problems these people are having, the neighbors know. Do we have any information on that that we can share? Prior to the ordinance being created, we did do a study, Police Department gave a report, As far as I'm at that time when the accordance was created, as far as new information, since then I had to go back and check with the police department, but I don't have that readily with me at this point.

[1:48:29] Well, sometimes, you know, when you call enough, it just becomes a nuisance, and people don't really want to follow up on it. But you know, we got 44 hotels here in town, that'll take care of 2,900 people, I looked like these STRs really go against these people, the tax place and all. I just feel like that this is not really a place it should be in our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Further public comment? Come on up to the front and sit on the front row if you want to speak that way you'll be up here ready to go. Morning City Council, I have plenty to say I had about 10 minutes worth of what I want to say and I've narrowed it down to three minutes. I'm going to try to read this quickly. My name is Jody Babbish. I live at 2045 American Legion set address. I'm still a bit confused on how we got to this point. I like to think I did my homework when my wife and I decided to look into this venture. I've watched all the previous city council meetings in their entirety. It was clear to me that both sides came to a mutual understanding and the standards would be if an STR was approved and it was. After speaking with the planning department, I went through all the regulations restrictions to be sure that my property would qualify the conditional use. All the car words were met and I paid my application fee and the day was set for the Planning Commission. Some of the regulations that you know we already went through, the street has to be at least 30 feet wide, minus 42. It says an old home can be within 500 feet of another, mine's over a half a mile. One of the things that the Planning Commission said was about the parking, this was one of the of the big things. It said you must have at least two approved parking spots. I have seven plus. Here's where I'm most confused. One reason was voted because there's not enough parking. As you can see from the picture, which I don't know, it was supposed to be up there, I took an aerial view of my property and I have over 15 parking places

[1:50:32] and I actually pulled seven cars where everybody could possibly get out. I have 300 feet of driveway. There's, go to the next one right there. There's seven, there's a shuttle bus, two work trucks, two vehicles underneath the carport, and two other vehicles. And then next to the right there is the parking lot for the church there, the overflow. Anyways, as they said, you're only allowed to have 20 people being allowed at one time. If every single person of those 20 people drove their own vehicle, I would still have enough parking for everybody parked in my yard. I have numerous vehicles in my driveway, Rather, just not any worse than STR would be. My wife and I both work from home. I do home inspections and manage my rentals and it has a side job. I may go in and out of my driveway five to 10 times a day. My wife with her line of work, she might go out even more. There are stipulations that planning department has set forth regarding STRs and how many people can stay the night and visit, et cetera. I have a renter's contract with I have with me if any of you'd like to see it that states that we will meet these requirements. I would like to address the 15 letters, actually however many there were, that the neighbors in opposition to the STRs. I was told that six letters went out to the neighbors within 200 feet of my home. Only one person in that 200 feet received a letter in opposition. That gentleman took it upon himself, made his own letter, which I had with me, went door to door and approached other neighbors aggressively. I know this for a fact because I have a friend that lives at the end of the street that was approached by this gentleman. He then proceeded to say how I was going to ruin neighborhood and use my horse as a party house. The gentleman's house is about 165 feet away from mine. The other neighbors that we're talking about are anywhere from 600 to 1,000 feet away, not even visible from my house. Please keep in mind this is my home that I love. This is not a shack I bought just to make a quick buck. My personal belongings are still in the home. I will remain there. My wife and I are using this as a way to bridge a gap between two mortgages as we stated. We have another venture downtown.

[1:52:33] We will continue to live there as long as we can until it sells and we will stay with other family if it is rented. I would love the opportunity to answer any questions. I know some questions came up and I didn't get an opportunity after at the Planning Commission to answer questions. Please, if there's any questions that I can answer you that you're questioning this, please ask me now. For your time runs out, Jody, could you talk really quickly about your building downtown that you're getting ready to put a bed and breast percent. We are we bought the old Central Fire Station downtown San Angelo we were depending on that whether this would work or not we kind of got past the October point we had to make a decision whether to buy that property or not we went out on land we bought the property hoping that this would go through we we we prayed about it did everything we could and whether this goes through or not it doesn't matter anymore so we're committed and we hope you guys it's just right I mean I I totally believe in property rights I believe everybody should have their own property rights at their own home I do not believe somebody live in a thousand feet a week for me should tell me what I can do with my property thank you yes yes Tom just by looking googlers looking next door there's a volleyball court next door they ever is that part of the property that's the line right there that's my neighbors property that particular gentleman lives in a middle in Odessa I honestly see him four times a year I see him at Christmas 4th of July Memorial and Labor Day they ever have anything there now I will I will say Wednesday night the church right next door to me and I didn't bring this up the church next door to me every night everyone's a night they have youth group they play loud music they're out there playing games, doing all their stuff. That six foot fence he's talking about, that border, that's my house, that's my fence right there. The church property is zoned commercial, the church across the street is zoned commercial. So when they say this is a residential area, maybe where

[1:54:33] they live a thousand feet away, I'm right here in the commercial. Across the knickerbocker, it's all zoned commercial. So, you know, the church has never been a problem. I leave my driveway every day. Every morning from seven o'clock to about nine they have preschool traffic goes in and out. It's I deal with this every day and I don't have a problem with it. I don't know why my neighbors that are again like Harry said or someone said I'm two two houses off Knickerbucker you would never drive I've never been down the end of my street I've never I've walked down there I've rode a bike down there I've never drove down there and I've been here two and a half years. Thank you very much. Mass, Mr. Babish question. Yes, you may. If I heard you correctly, you mentioned you're going to have your own contract. Yes. That you. Well, it's not standard. I made my own contract for STRs. It specifically says in there all the city ordinances that they have to buy by it. My particular case, I'm going to require a $500 deposit. And I'm also gonna, there's other stipulations that I personally have. Like I said, I have the contract here, it'll be on the wherever I advertise the Airbnb, whatever. That's part of it. And you can pick and choose who you want. It's not like a hotel where somebody just shows up to your property or your place and you have to rent it to them. Like you can book a hotel online. FTRs are a little bit different. So if, I for one would like to see the contract It may not have time to review it fully, but I guess one question I would have for you, how would you, if there are problems with the things they have signed with you, how would you go about dealing with those? I do have off-subject, I have a doorbell camera, I have three cameras on my dock, as far as

[1:56:37] If anybody breaks any of these policies and rules and I find out about it whether the police are called or I just observe it They automatically lose their deposit and are asked to leave immediately without receiving the refund on their money Again, you know people who rent STRs are like me and you they're not They're not party people as some people say they're you know, I'm renting this house for four hundred fifty dollars a night You're not gonna get teenagers or whatever you want to call it go in there to party their normal families I want to get together and enjoy the lake. I mean, honestly. Thank you. Further public comment? It's Ruben Jensen. And I am in favor of his STR. I actually own an STR myself. And it's a huge benefit to be able to enjoy your own property when it's not rented, to be able to have a little place up in the mountains. And if I were to rent it out on a normal rental agreement, I would have zero use of that real use of that property. But our own furniture is going to be there. Their own stuff is in there. And we vet these people very well when we let folks into a STR. And it's not a party scene. I have stayed at numerous STRs across, whether it's Daytona Beach or wherever. I personally enjoy going to a home rather than a hotel or a resort, just that fits my personality more, just a nice afternoon at the lake, a weekend at the lake with family, and I see a huge benefit to having STRs, and I myself have never been privy to having the party scene whatsoever. It's more of a playback, a party scene would be more likely to happen at a long-term rental.

[1:58:39] We also have long-term rental properties around town, and we follow the same criteria as any other neighborhood neighbor calls, police are called, and they're in violation of their lease, and so on. And also a big advocate for property rights. I think as far as property values go, I think that by limiting what someone can do with their property, you're actually bringing down the property values rather than raising property values. Thank you very much. Council, my name's Lenny James. And I'm very much in favor of these STRs. I've had the privilege to travel all over from Central America to Canada, and I much more prefer to do this. You are extremely vetted, that's sure, to say the least. The big advantage to these STRs is, as somebody that comes in, You have an opportunity to stay somewhere like staying in your own home and I don't know many people that are going to trashed around home or go to one of these places and decide to invite people over to have these parties. I just see that what the babishes are doing downtown, I'll kind of follow up where Jody left off there, you know, he's he's planning on investing a considerable amount of money in our city. And, you know, this gunner, I mean, that was one of the things that you railed on was small business and bringing it back to San Angela. I personally owned two and I've been here for two years now. And it's one of the reasons why I chose San Angela because it's a town that's on the grow. And I think that it's time to get more behind small business.

[2:00:41] And I don't believe that any of the people of these 19 letters could come here and say, you know what? I've stayed at one of these because I don't. I don't think that there's probably too many people in this room that have. This is something that's very new, obviously. but we need to start adapting and learning as a city, it's time to grow and it's time to start making these changes. And small changes are good because you could adapt later. I just believe that this would be a huge mistake by not allowing this, this would be a perfect trial. It's basically like, you know, kind of having your own guinea pig that if it works, then it does. And like Jody says, you know, they're planning on selling the property. You don't know what's going to happen with that property in six months or two years, you know, the people that come in and buy it, you know, probably won't continue to have this. So I just believe that this is, this is something that's good for the entire community. And as far as the people that live in this residential area. It's not very residential. Jody's the first basic driveway off of Nicaragua. So I just think that this is something that really should be considered. Thank you very much for the public comment. Kevin. I've got a little cold sorry. My name is Kevin Collins and I have no dog in this hunt but I did have the opportunity about three weeks ago, I was a part of a deal at St. Mary's University where the master's program there actually did an analysis of some of my businesses for their, you know, whatever, you know, to get their master's degree.

[2:02:41] Well, the interesting thing was is that one of the people that was presenting was doing this very thing for bed and breakfast in San Antonio, and there's some interesting statistics it might help. What they found is that the average person that rents a bed and breakfast is over the age of 35. 55% of them are women, 45% men. Okay. The other thing that the MBA program kids were doing for this particular bed and breakfast owner was to try to find ways to get millennials to get involved with this type of of rental because in reality the entire the entire demographic is older people. They've actually found in the San Antonio one which was on the Riverwalk. Only 10% of the people had children with them when they rented this bed and breakfast because it's a generally an older person type situation. And I'm just I was just lucky enough to have you know they did the whole thing on some other things not related to this for me but I got to sit and listen to this presentation and the owner of that bed and breakfast put the MBA program students with the task of trying to find ways to get young people to come. So I think it just kind of maybe gives you something to think about about who actually is renting these things as they're going forward. Thanks Kevin. Michelle. Michelle Babish. So I had a bunch of stuff I wanted to say but I really wanted to just address our neighbors and my husband and I certainly don't want to upset anyone let alone our neighbors. I just want to just speak into the mic Michelle just pull it down a bit. There you go. to point out that prior to this, my neighbors had no idea what my name was, they had no idea what I look like, they did not know me from Adam. I lived in there for two and a half years, just so Mr. Chris knows I've had two ASU students living on my property. One of them just moved out, he moved to San Antonio, but I've had two. They've had their friends over in the summer

[2:04:41] time, not one weekend goes by that we don't have people at our home in this. We're out of town and if we're out of town, we're normally staying in an SCR. We have had birthday parties. We've had church gatherings. We've had two ASU graduations. I've had a birthday party for a four-year-old and a five-year-old. And I'm here to say that a five-year-old is louder than 20 adults. Mr. Chris doesn't know that. You know why? Because whatever happens on my property has never affected him ever. I've had as many as 60 people on my property multiple times, and so like I said, my neighbors are never going to be affected. They never have to go, anyone staying in my house, I literally, I've never driven down American Legion either. I walk all the time and take my grandkids and stuff. I literally have never driven a car down American Legion because I don't have a reason to. Now that privacy fence he was talking about the church, We as well have a six foot privacy fence. And so that, you know, again, if he was happy that that was being a barrier, we also have a barrier. As Jody stated, our neighbor, he only comes to town, he doesn't even come to town that often, but somebody uses his home. I've only seen them maybe six or eight times in two and a half years, not often. We're not bugging anybody. And when you say, you know, how can you ensure, I mean, I can't guarantee you anything, but we have rentals. We managed them very well. We'd had very few problems. Just to put this in perspective, and like Mr. Heber said, my back property where more normal people that go to the lake are gonna be, it is visible from a city park with a boat ramp. It is visible from Knickerbocker Road. If there's anything going on that shouldn't be going on, there's multiple people that are gonna see. And now I have 16 watchdogs. So I guarantee you, there's nothing gonna be happening at my property. I mean, seriously. And so I just, I have to say, like I said,

[2:06:41] we're doing this because it's helping my family. I guess it's a little personally hurtful that my neighbors don't appreciate that. But here's another thing that bugs me as somebody wrote in one of their letters the last time we're a tight knit neighborhood. My neighbors never even knew who I am before this. And so they're a tight knit neighborhood and that just goes to show, I'm not really part of their neighborhood. I don't live far enough down to be part of their neighborhood. I never have. And so I have to say just really quick, we do have our house for sale. It's for over $400,000. Not very many people buy a $400,000 over $400,000 our house to STR and rent it to other people. We do want to do this to help bridge the gap, but it's not a little shack. It's my rules are way, I have way more rules than you all have, and people better abide by them. And so I'm just saying, I just, I, I, I really, really, I just am very confident that it'll be a great STR. People can come, they can enjoy my property, like we haven't for two and a half years, and there aren't gonna be any problems. Thank you, Michelle, for the public comment. Gentlemen, I'm Donna Chris, my husband has already spoken, I know, but I wanted to tell you a couple of things. This is a sweet little community neighborhood. one of the former city councilman came to have a meeting and get to know the people in their neighborhood one time and we stood in the adopted spot which the neighbors are all asked to contribute to the upkeep for it. It's in the center of our neighborhood that was put in the mailbox at a certain time and the donations come in to keep that going. And he said at that moment he said this is really remarkable. I know of no other place in San Angelo where the neighbors maintain something like this adopter spot right in the middle of it.

[2:08:44] I really also want to say I appreciate the babishes. As some of you who know me know I've been tremendously involved with historic preservation in San Angelo. I've been on the historic commission. I'm on the Old Town Conservancy. It's important to reuse our buildings. It's important to keep our character alive. So I applaud what they're trying to do. I also know that Austin has tried this type of short-term rental and have done away with it. That's an example that we can go by. Also, granite shoals where I happen to have a brother-in-law who's mayor right now. They are trying to phase it out on that lake and the way they will do that, is that it will not transfer to the next owner. So the ones that exist, and there is one across from their little house, and when it's rented, which is almost every weekend except for about three in January, there is a constant progression of people. They added lights for fishing. Those lights now bounce into the living room of my relative's home, and if you've ever lived on the lake, you know light and sound, bounce and carry over water. We are down at the end of this street, but we do care about the other neighbors that are closer across the slough and on the other side of the peninsula. important to remember, this is a little peninsula. There is one way in, there is one way out. And it's that sort of unique situation. And also there are, you know, there are children being unloaded every morning and picked up at around one every day across the street. So I do care about the type of quality of people that come to this situation if it were granted.

[2:10:51] And I would be very watchful of that. But I will tell you, other cities have learned their lesson about how these are run. So I appreciate your judging that also. Thank you very much. Donna. Good morning. My name is Debbie Powell. I do on one of the short-term rentals at it like Nasworthy, that one of them that is already approved. There is an ordinance in place that specifies they have to have two parking places. This applicant has several parking places. The street is at least 30 foot wide as regulated. They've met the other requirements and the same city ordinance that allows that you can review the planning commission. There's also a city ordinance in place regulating short term rentals. And I reviewed the planning commission, the planning commission's video, and they stated on there that their concern was for one, lack of parking, and for two, that the place was for sale. But in the planning staff report on October 16th, the very last condition listed on there at the time said the conditional use is not transferable, and the conditional use shall be void upon the transfer or change of ownership of the property that contains the short-term rental. Since that was at the time in the staff report recommendation and then when the Planning Commission voted well we're concerned because it's for sale that was already a condition of approval at that time. Now from what I'm hearing today that is now off the table so that's a little bit confusing to me but what I'm saying is they qualify under the current ordinance

[2:12:51] and to start just listening and I understand neighborhood concerns but there is an ordinance and part of the stipulation of the ordinance was to specify that after one year this has to be you have to apply again it's a $385 application fee to bring it up again then all the letters go out again And if there's concerns at that time, the entire purpose was that after one year, you could review any neighborhood, not fears, but facts. Thank you. Randall Scotting. Harry, I saw you kind of laugh when someone said that they received a letter and went around to their neighbors. I think that's sad. think I think I applaud that neighbor or taking an interest in his neighborhood and going around and talking to the rest of them. Does anybody know how many bedrooms this place has? I see nothing on any of the city paperwork or documents that I've pulled down so far that indicate that with this property. Well, your letter appealing this said it was for 10 people with only four bedrooms that would be only for eight. So that's something that turns the neighborhood and the neighbors into policemen. And just yesterday we saw this. When the animartianist S.T.R. was approved. It was approved because all of the police calls that we called in. We didn't ask for an incident report. We didn't make the police do the extra work so we could say here. Here it is. There was police called, but they didn't ask for an incident report

[2:14:59] demand one. Maybe there's other means I'm unaware of Daniel that that you know we could take a look at this but the point is this has already been going on a year and the one that was approved yesterday had plenty of police calls. There was several people that had got up and testified I don't know if you've taken a look at that at that STR. I was there, Randolph. Okay. Okay. But as you heard, then, is because they didn't have those incident reports there, they just said, well, we'll go another year. And so now what that did is it forces us to, when we call the police, is to ask for an incident report and put extra work on the police force. We have no choice. Also, there was some back and forth over the police saying that's code enforcement, that's not for us to deal with. So how do you document that on a weekend? I would love to see this thing tabled and for you guys to take another hard look at this ordinance, especially since we have some new eyes to look at it. As far as San Diego goes, I want a condo in San Diego. We don't allow short-term rentals. B&Bs are fine. The one out at the lake went out of business because they couldn't afford the extra tax assessment to run a B&B on that property. And I heard that it was up for sale. So with that being said, I'm certainly against short-term rentals and a major deal with these short-term rentals on this particular property by the Planning Commission was traffic. They have police there on the weekend. I use that intersection.

[2:16:59] Thank you very much. Thank you. Further public comment? Good morning council. My name is Jean-Ann Damberth and I'm for STRs. I initiated the help in writing the ordinance and I would like to ask Mr. Scotty over the lifetime of him living at the lake, how many calls have been sent to your home? How many police calls sent to your home? We can't really have this discussion. We cannot have this conversation, address the council only, not the audience. Sorry, council. The Babishes are here understanding what the requirements are. We're here to approve them and to allow this. Otherwise, we need to go back, rewrite the ordinance. And that's putting all this not of what we've put together. So we are for this. We are abiding by the ordinance as written. We do not allow more than 20 people at the home. They are monitored. And like the Babishes said, they have 16 monitors. That's great for them. Thank you very much. Thank you. Further public comment? Good morning. My name is Anna Martinez, and I am owner of a short-term rental. Let me explain. This was not part of my conversation today, but first of all about the police reports. Yes, I did bring that with me yesterday to the Planning Commission. Two neighbors did call the police, and there was not a report written upon it, because the nice police officer went politely to our home

[2:18:59] to ask the military stay to quiet it down, something that a neighbor could have done, and it was not done. So there was not a report done on that, and I do have the facts. If you wanna look at that contact Jeff Fisher, he will give you the documents I picked up from the police department. I'm gonna go back to what I was originally gonna say. I first wanna say a big thank you to our city council leaders in making this happen. a proven and ordinance for short-term rentals so that we can share our home, our beautiful home, welcoming beautiful families and business leaders to our city. Number two, thank you to our city planning and commission members for having the knowledge and knowing what is best for our city. Number three, thank you to our city employees and I'm gonna begin with those that help beautify our lake. And of course, our city permit department for being so helpful to many of us to make this happen. We thank the community, the boards, and many others that have been so supportive of this issue. If this owner has complied with our city ordinance, we ask you all to please approve his short-term rental as he is just trying to do the right thing, not doing it illegal. And that is abiding by the city ordinance and helping to accommodate our city needs. Because I will let you know, I do not only rent out to short-term, I will rent out to long-term. If I have great tenants in our home, like I did not too long ago, I will rent out to them. For example, he was moving down from another state to take a great job opportunity here in San Angelo was trying to purchase a home and didn't have a place to call home for his two children, I housed him in our own home for longer than the 31 days stay.

[2:21:02] That's what short-term rentals do for our city. We owners will continue in helping each other out by communicating and abiding by the city ordinance because my golly, if something does get shown out on Facebook, I will have another short-term rental person call me, get on this. I don't go to Facebook, but they do. And when they see something like that, you believe me, I will contact them immediately and ask them what happened. And they do explain to me as to what happened. Their false accusations that are being made towards great people, and that is not right. I have also installed cameras at my home. Believe me, if they are out partying, they will hear from me immediately not after the fact again I want to thank you all so much thank you further public comment morning my name is our own Frank I live on the like I'm opposed to short-term rentals because we've lived next to them for many years we have one person who operated illegally she and with the local attorney got together and made up the rules that were presented and accepted by the city. The rest of us didn't participate in that. And I will agree with you that a number of the people who come are very pleasant, but there are enough in the past that have been partygoers. It's just the nature of the late. People want to come and have their parties on the lake. And it has severely changed the complexion of our neighborhood. Our feelings of safety, they've violated our, they've been on our property. In some cases, they've damaged the property.

[2:23:04] I have a friend whose mailbox was demolished by some. So they're just, it's a commercial enterprise, And I applaud this young couple for what they want to do. And I would fully support it in any way we could if it would be my other opposition to them getting this is just that it's going to be transferable. If it could end when they sell the property, even that would be helpful. I don't want to be unkind or squelch anyone's plans, Well, to anyone's plans, but this is just the camel getting its nose into the tent. Just if it just goes on and on and on and it's not getting better. Maybe some special rules for the lake, I don't know. But that's what I had to say this morning. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have additional public comment? Good morning. My name is Bobby Wood. I live within that 200 feet. I'm the one that went around and made sure that everybody in that neighborhood know what was going on. And I think as long as Michelle and her husband, Jody, are there, like they say, we would have no problem. But when they sell that house, if this is fast, we're going to have a problem. That's when we start having our problems, I'm sure. And I just, I'm definitely against this. And I hope that y'all go along and do the right thing. And I'll tell you something. Thank you, Bobby.

[2:25:04] Appreciate it very much. Thank you. And further public comment. Rodney? And Council, my name is Rodney Fleming. I'm going to have a little bit of a different approach to this. I'm a real estate broker here in town, and I'm actually sold properties next to two properties next to a short-term rental in the last two years. So when they brought up one of the, when they said that one of the reasons why they voted against it was value or taking the value away from these properties, that's simply not true. Both times that I sold the houses, the people were very aware that the houses next door were short-term rental houses, and it did not affect the value of the houses that I sold. And when you're talking about the lake, I myself have owned six houses out at the lake in the last 17 years. I've owned 15 houses here in town. When the lady says, you know, maybe we should do rules out at the lake, I am 100% against that. If you're gonna do a rule, you do it for the whole city and everybody plays by the same game. Lane said it perfectly earlier when he said, are we gonna pick and choose who gets to do a short-term rental? That's what y'all are doing right now. You're fixing to say that they're not going to get a short-term rental, but somebody else did yesterday. That to me is not fair at all. So either you say you don't get no short-term rentals, which I'm not for at all, or everybody gets a short-term rental and then has to abide by the rules. The rules have been set forward for everybody and everybody has to play by the same rules. I love how the council came forward and they put in that it's reviewed after every year. I think that's a very good thing. If you're having a problem with them, Jean, or not Jean, but Scotty should have gotten place reports on those things. And then they should have had those things coming forward. I'm sure he will in the future on those. A couple of the other things that they were talking about, I'm trying to get this in in three minutes. They were saying parking and traffic. Well, for this property, how can you even bring that up?

[2:27:06] This is right beside a church that literally has between three and 500 vehicles going into it on Sunday in Wednesday. Parking and traffic out the window. I don't know how they denied it on that at all. I'll end it by saying two things. One, the lady mentioned that there are no more short-term rentals in Austin. That is not true. There are short-term rentals in Austin. They're still available right now today and really no city has banned short-term rentals in the state of Texas entirely. They have put lots of regulations on short-term rentals just as we did and some of them are different rules than we had. The third quarter of appeals in Texas on August 22nd, nobody's even brought this up. August 22nd of this year, the third quarter of appeals joined a growing list of state appellate courts to hold that renting your home out for short periods of time does not magically transform into a commercial enterprise that is incompatible with residential neighborhoods. The courts holding was clear. If a vacation if a vacation runner uses a home for the purposes of eating, sleeping, and other residential purposes, this is a residential, not commercial, no matter how short the rental is. That's pretty clear. What I see here, what you guys, and I'll try to finish real quick, what I see here that you guys are setting your up, ourselves up for, is a city, is a law city. And that's what I would do. If I was him, if you guys denied this, I would take it forward, because I think that picking and choosing is not fair if you abide by the rules. And there are laws that are in place to monitor noise parking trash. There are laws in place to monitor all this. Thank you for your time. Thank you. If you want to speak, please come to the microphone. We won't have a conversation in the audience. Randall Scottie, I just want to rebut a couple of things that the gentleman brought up. I'm aware of what was that the third district? Yeah.

[2:29:06] There's also an opposite decision in the fourth district. Also, in this legislative session and in special session, Senator Hancock introduced House Bill, I believe it was 4551, and the sister bill was, I believe it was SB 451. Him and a whole group of lobbyists from homeaway.com, Airbnb, they tried all session and special session to attach it to anything they possibly could to get it passed so that STRs would be legal statewide. It didn't get done, it didn't happen, nobody would let it attach to the bill. So that's how the state of Texas feels about short term terms. Thank you very much. With no further public comment, we will move on to make a vote. vote at this point in time will be to appeal the Planning Commission's denial, in other words, approving the STR with a modification on item five with one on lit sign not being able to be put out. No signs. In other words, no signs. that as the motion is there there was a second so at this point we will take a vote all those in favor of approving this STR say aye aye any nays one name by Tommy hebert motion passes five to one I would at this time and perhaps you can tell me whether I'm legal or not legal but I would at this point like to request a re-review of the STR policy going forward. You can direct that, that's what I want to make. Next what I would like to do is I think we all need a break, but when we come back for break, because we have a lot of people in the audience who are here I believe to talk

[2:31:08] about item I, we will take up item I following the break, 11, 25. I'm going to read item I, which will be the next item up for consideration. It is consider options for sulfur, sulfur, draw, wastewater improvements, project and possible action related to the contract with Darnell construction LLC. Russell will present and I have been told that I have a personal conflict on this item. So I have been asked to leave the city council chambers and will not be participating in the conversation. All right. Thank you. I'm here to talk today about the Santa Rita sewer, sulfur draw, sewer project and rehabilitation. This is in the greater Santa Rita area and we're looking at replacing two trunk sewer mains that collect the majority of the sewer for this area. And these two sewer mains were built in the 1950s and the 1920s, so approximately 100 years old or we're reaching that 100 year mark very quickly. Some of the issues that we have with this, these sewer mains are primarily TCEQ regulatory issues with due to capacity and structural issues with the sewer mains. And we need to minimize the sanitary sewer overflows that are occurring from these sewer mains. Some of the design considerations that we looked at when we were moving forward with this project where the going through the existing alignment, look, we looked at alternate routes through the neighborhood.

[2:33:11] We also looked at alternate rehabilitation methods, including pipe bursting and cured in place pipe, things of that nature and I can expand on that later. Just to kind of give everyone an idea of the amount of service area that's collecting, these two sewer mains are collecting. Here's an overall map showing those areas. It's, you know, we've got, it was highway 87 on this side. We've got, here is the Santa Fe golf course. Here is Sherwood Way, and we have ASU down here to the south. And the sewer mains that we're looking at are right through this area here, or come down through here. And we're serving a little over 2,300 homes in this area. And then just these different colors here are the actual sewer mains in those areas. and the different sub basins that they've drained to. But they all come to this, ultimately, to this point here at the end of the project at the Highway 87. Oh, our current project, and this is an overview of our current project. Here again, here's US Highway 87, Santa Fe, golf course, Washington Drive, or Street, and Paseo de Baca. The blue lines are the lines that will actually be rehabilitating and using a cure-and-place pipe, and basically what that is, is a sock that has a resin with it. We pressurized that sock to form against the existing sewer main, and essentially that resin has a chemical reaction and creates a new pipe within the existing pipe. And the red lines are the lines that will be abandoning in place, what we'll be doing is we'll be filling those full of grout, and those lines will no longer be and service. The black lines here are the actual project that we're working on so

[2:35:13] we'll have a gravity line that'll come through here to a sewer lift station and then from there it'll be pumped across Santa Fe park to a gravity main. Just to kind of give you an idea of footages we're looking at approximately 1,150 feet of 18 inch gravity main and 830 inch main wastewater lift station 2,500 feet of sewer force main and 4,200 feet of the trenches repair the cured-in-place pipe that I spoke about earlier. Also with this project we'll be constructing it all within the public right-of-way. Also within the Santa Fe or the sulfur draw park. We've already awarded a contract to Darnell construction for 3.88 million dollars in the construction and scheduled to begin on January 4th with a contract time frame of 300 days. Our list station, just to kind of give you a little more idea of what's going on there. The overall footprint of the list station, I know it's kind of hard to see, but it's basically a 30 by 50 footprint of the list station here, here's a sketch of the proposed list station just to give a little better feel of what's going on in the park. We'll be including landscaping, you know, we'll have a rock facade around the Around the lift station with cedar picket fences for, you know, bringing a vehicle in their vehicle access as well as a man to gate One thing that'll actually be going away from this drawing is the There's a parking spaces here we requested a variance from planning to do away with the parking there and to

[2:37:13] minimize the amount of concrete and you know leading up to this so basically we'll be able to do away with that parking and we'll be utilizing the drive and within the proposed lift station parking and utilizing that. Here's an example of our some of our typical lift stations around town we typically have a chain link fence with three strands of bob wire up on top, you know, is everything's visible, you know, have you control panels, your wet wells, your bow balls, everything similar to what we have going on here. Here's another example of where, you know, just to try to block the view of that, you know, putting in slats here in the chain link fence, try to minimize the impacts or the views of that but you know like I said before you know we're we're trying to minimize that we're trying to blend it into the area by using you know landscaping and a rock facade here as well to blend it into the neighborhood. Also with this list station we'll be including an order control unit that will remove 99% of the hydrogen sulfate gases that will be produced from any sewer activity. This will be behind the rock facade. Some of the noise impacts that would typically occur from a list station are from our wetwell, our wetwells, where we house our pumps to pump the sewage uphill, but there again that'll be 25 foot below ground where the noises will be minimized as well as we'll have noises from the odor control unit, the odor control unit, just to give you kind of an example, the decibel level that comes is generated from that is is comparable to an exterior AC unit,

[2:39:19] and but there again it'll also be behind this block wall or rock facade. We also have a backup generator for emergency situations if a power should ever fail, you know, that generator would would automatically kick on and provide power to this lift station. We'd also be providing routine maintenance on that. The routine maintenance on our generator is typically once or twice a year during normal business hours on a normal business week. All right, so during our design, we looked at multiple sites. We narrowed it down to three sites. Site number one here is where we're actually, this is where the current configuration is. The site number two was across the street, and site number three was over here at the corner of the park in Washington. It's just an aerial view to kind of give you a little better feel of where that is. The site number three is just a vacant lot. Our actual site selection and how we determined our chosen number one was primarily due to it was out of the floodplain. So we had to immediately exit out number two or site two. The other option for number three is privately owned, which would require ownership, and there were some other hurdles to get to that site as well. We were faced with crossing the raw water, 39-inch raw water main, and crossing the draw again, and I'll get into that in a minute. Some of the other impacts, too, were if we were coming from site one or coming through the same alignment,

[2:41:19] we'd have to go through Washington Street, and the depth that the sewer main would have to be dug at would virtually cut off the use of Washington and the amount of rock that we would have to dig through was also a consideration. All right, so after our public meeting that we had on November 20th. We were asked to look at some alternate methods or look at different options to include here. So going with basically the same alignment, some things that we could have looked at and considered were possibly increasing the height of the block wall that we were proposing. The current height is eight foot. We could look at increasing that to 10 foot. We also looked at adding a roof structure. I mean, if you can envision a public restroom at a park where you have an enclosure and then a roof over that where the walls don't necessarily connect. And then we could also look at reducing the footprint, or we've considered those options. So here's just one option of reducing the footprint. Currently, like I said before, we're 30 by 50 footprint. This is reducing it from 30 by 50 to 30 by 41. Number two is reducing it to 15 by 40. With this option here, we would have some of the valve vault and operations outside of the enclosed area. And then option number three is a 38 by 36. This keeps everything, all the operations within the block wall here. So we looked at alternative site number three.

[2:43:23] We'd require site acquisition. We'd have to purchase that property from the property owner and could potentially delay the project a little further, trying to negotiate that. And if we're not able to negotiate that, we'd have to look at some other method. And currently our contractor has some time and efforts involved thus far with the current configuration And we'd have to look at what those costs would be as well. Part of the problems with moving to site number three are we'd have to do a gravity line from site one to site three with additional force main length going from site three back to the existing alignment. We'd also have to cross a 39-inch raw water main that's coming from OHIV and the biggest costs involved are the amount of rock in the depth that we would have to dig through through rock. So after reviewing this with our engineer and our contractor we've estimated or the budgetary numbers that would cost to move this would be anywhere from 625,000 to 930,000 and that's due to there again large part to the rock that's involved with cutting through that. that. The additional costs that were not included with this were the costs for the redesign and the property acquisition. All right, so basically moving forward we have three options. We have, we can move through, you know, we continue with what was awarded on the current project or we can provide some, you know, the second option would be providing a modified you know, keeping in the same location, but reducing the footprint or putting a root structure, things of that nature, or, you know, moving forward with the site

[2:45:23] number three, purchasing that property, moving the gravity and the force main that are adding that to the project and redesign, and we would most likely need to re-bid this project due to the scope and the size of that adjustment. Staffs recommendation is to move forward with either the current project or some type of modification to the existing lift station. All right Russell I've got questions. Absolute need for the lift station is there one from what I understand it's because of the size of the pipe for the gravity feed right supplying ever all the 2300 homes at that specific location is that correct? That's correct, so we are facing some TCEQ regulatory issues due to capacity issues, more or less. What happens is the existing flow of the sewer is at capacity with those mains, and then anytime we have a rain event or something of that nature, it will surcharge the line. you know we get a lot of infiltration into the line and it'll cause the manholes in the area to come up off the lid and you know we'll have a sanitary sulfur draw and sulfur draw. That's great. Is that why the choice of putting it on the northwest side of Paseo de Vaca where it currently is on the opposite side into the park is that why that was selected because of of the floodplain and the manholes being blown off. It's great. That's great. It's had a large part to do with it, as well as just the constructability of the area. If we tried to stay on the other side, we had a lot of issues with steep embankments, and it was just unconstructable to stay on the other side.

[2:47:29] From what I understand, also, the way that San Angelo was built in the times of the 20s and the 50s, we didn't anticipate the growth and the capacity all the way out to Nazaree. So Santa Rita being one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city, the growth of college hills wasn't predicted, Southland, the Bluffs, all converging into that for the capacity that way. So the best engineering practices were also not an effect. That's why we have the current sewer line underneath Mr. Stribbling's front yard, going through his live oak trees, and that's Curry's backyard underneath his fence, both being on private property. Aside it being in that floodplain, and every time it rains and floods in that area, all of the sewer is being exposed to the sulfur draw, which goes down into the Conchow River. Potentially yes. And also with TCEQ being on our backs for this, this is kind of a precedence. Greg, this is a high priority project. You know, the way that they were constructed in the first place between the 20s and 50s, we're just, we're now filling the repercussions of it. Harry's figuring that out with Avenue P, dealing with a similar situation. I think we can all agree that the sewer lines need repair, need to be replaced. What's the best means? What is the best repair? The traditional dig up would be going into Mr. Stribbling's front yard with loss of trees, going into Mr. Currie's backyard with the loss of of his fins and his fins. That is a possibility. I mean, we did initially go that direction, but with due to constructability issues, and we're getting easements, we were unable to acquire those easements.

[2:49:29] Right. Along with the River Terrace parking lot from that number of issues, it was not just those two properties. We had a number of issues of trying to acquire. I don't know. Also, I had to know. I was just not. A question asked to me, can the current, if we would do the blow-in in the current location, would that solve the problems with the leakage? It would solve the problem with the leakage, but the issue that would still remain is the capacity issue. You know, if we're putting in a sock, we're obviously reducing the size of the existing lines, and, you know, what we need is a larger main to handle the flows, not only the average daily flows, but if we do have any I&I upstream, we need to be able to handle that capacity as well. location from Paseo de Vaca at Algerita and Paseo de Vaca at Washington, crossing over Montecito, engineeringly, we are kind of set on how our gravity feed at that point because it has to continue unless a list station would be at that location, which that's out of the question. We're not. Correct. That's out of the question mainly due to the floodplain issues that we have in the location. So, if the lift station is the best means on site number one, that was selected because of the floodplain, because of acquiring that property, who knows what that cost would be, if it would even be sold. So, number three is completely out of the question at this point. can donate that property or sell it at a reasonable cost. From what I've heard is they have thoughts of coming back and moving here and building onto that site. So that's, we can't even consider that for plan number two and put the lift station there

[2:51:29] because that's going to have water going down into it for maintenance issues. With the 39 inch O.H.I.B. water line coming down Washington, that's almost like an abdominal surgery going close to the aorta, no contractor or surgeon wants that liability. They're going to try to avoid that. Great. I think I'm two feet below the third one. We have to go at least two feet below it and if we do go to the site three, we would potentially have to cross it twice because 39 inch, depending on where it is located here, we may have to cross it here and back here. Is there any possible way on the Northwest side of where we were moving it into the park at all to continue a gravity feed with addition of a separate pipe to split? We still have the same issues there of acquiring easements and the constructability. You know, you still have, you know, I mean, especially if you get the further down, you get to the Conchill River and I can oh sorry where or the two lane paseo comes that's where that's where our main issue is correct. Well you know our main issue goes all stems all the way I mean we have to be able to get it off to the furthest point downstream so the furthest point downstream is here so yes we do have some constrictions here but you know if we had just a line here you still have the same means that you know sorry if you had we had our constrictions through here which is kind of where you're talking about all under private property and that's all on private property because that just dribblings or curries or is that it's a multitude of properties yeah there's three or four in there three or four okay you know but you know but we still have to get it down to this point so if we just added a pipe here you know

[2:53:35] We'd still have the same constrictions further downstream and we wouldn't really be solving anything As the pipe is what's determining the lift station, correct? You know at this time I'd actually like Now to go through council any suggestions that we have been missing if any there's any ideas Throw it this way along with public comment. I know there's going to be a lot of that that I would be happy to take in but Any questions a couple of questions. If we use one of the alternatives, we talked about an increased cost from 625 to 930, if that was the figures. That makes the project either 4.5 or $4.8 million plus the addition of acquiring the property. Is that correct? The property as well as getting the additional engineering work that we would need to get this project. So we could be pushing $5 million as opposed to the original 3.8. It's correct. Okay. The other thing is you talked about one of those lift stations would be the options were to reduce the footprint. Exactly what does that mean? So good question. Let me pull up my slide here. So here's the current configuration of our lift station as we're proposing it today with our contractor. You know, the actual footprint is this here. It's 30 by 50. It has a, you know, pretend, you know, we're gonna put a rock facade around it or a block face, you know, a split face, you know, something to that effect to enclose this and protect, you know, anybody from getting into this location. Well, what I meant by reducing the footprint was to make this, you know, minimize this overall square footage here. So that way, you know, we have less of a nuisance, you know, that

[2:55:39] was just, you know, primary concern has been on the size of this lift station as well as the odors and noises, you know, that could potentially be generated from that. So that, you know, that was in a nutshell what we were looking at for reducing the advantages that that is. The concept right here is it's it's blocked from public view. Go back to the drawing. It's blocked from public views. So when you talk about reducing the footprint by one of those alternatives, I mean, is there any advantages to the ultimate customers or the neighborhood by doing that? Just for aesthetics. Better that we've got all over town. I can guarantee you, I can tell you there are places where these sewer lift stations are that are not even enclosed. In my day district. So this looks beautiful to me. Also, also met with Mr. Miss Lynch before I met with Mr. Munoz. Once had the question, how far back can we move that? We're right now in this configuration right about the front back corner, closer to Mr. Munoz's house. There's a tree there and on the other corner, That's the other one that I'm talking about all right when I spoke to you last night We were kind of discussing that of course these these three parking spots are gone Craig these three parking spots are Gone, and also we can reduce the size of that structure by five feet in and five feet correct We can potentially bring them with yeah, reduce it by five foot in either direction, you know in this rendering we do have We have located Mr. Munyos' fence. If we do move this back much further though, currently the configuration of this lot or the fence,

[2:57:40] and I can let Mr. Munyos speak about this in a minute, but he has an opaque fence all the way up to a certain point, and then at some point beyond that, it changes to a chain link fence. If we could push this back much further, this could be in conflict with that chain link fence. and Peter's view of the park. Oh, the park. So far, for a girl park, correct. But there is a way to hide this even more by pushing it back, reducing the structure, beautifying it, keeping the trees in front of it, especially that cedar tree that I have in mind. And if we do away with this parking, that basically leaves that cedar tree alone. Russell. If you reduce the footprint, would that give more space between the lift station and Mr. Munoz House? Potentially, I mean, we could potentially move it further towards the draw, but we're limited somewhat on that because like I showed in the other slide, we are pretty close to the floodplain in that area, so we don't want to move it too far towards the draw and then potentially have it in the floodplain. So, you know, we are somewhat limited on space. The orange line that you currently have drawn out at the site location, that's on the south side. How close is that to the line of the floodplain? I'm not sure if I know the actual footage from that, you know, it's, you know, I'm estimating about 5 to 10 feet away from that. Also, a catch 22 because you don't want it closer, more invisibility towards the same as the actual part. I don't know that distance, but I do know that the bottom elevation is about two feet, approximate one and a half to two feet above the floodplain.

[2:59:41] So I'm speaking from elevation, and there's a pretty steep slope there. So if we try to move it too far down, we will get into the floodplain. Russell, you mentioned that some things that might make it more acceptable, I'll just use that term is to increase the height of the wall and potentially add a roof on that, so tell me what that would address by doing that. To help it blend into the area, those were just some ideas that were thrown around during our public forum, just increasing that wall height to that way, if you increase it here, you're just not seeing anything back behind there. As well as if you have a roof structure, it makes it look more like an actual structure instead of some type of bunker or what have you. Are those theta trees already there? Are they there right now? Are we looking at planting those as a barrier? This would be an additional barrier. I understand Russell that you had discussed increasing the wall height by two feet. And that was if I remember the slide that was 10,000. Yeah, roughly, you know, because what we'd have to do is we'd have to look at reinforcing our foundation underneath it, increasing that. So it's not just the cost of increasing the wall height, but it would be increasing the foundation as well. I mean, and those are just budgetary numbers. You know, it could very well be less than that, but you know, I'd rather be conservative and budget appropriately. And extra two feet, hide more. Is there something exposed that that two feet would be. We do have a shade structure here over the control panel that's you know approximately at that eight foot height that may be seen you know depending on what view you're looking at but it's a stainless steel shade structure and it really you know with the eight foot wall as it is now it

[3:01:42] should pretty well cover that don't understand you said that the the actual pump was going to be how far underground actual pumps are 25 foot below ground. That's correct due to the you know we're crossing the sofa draw so we're trying to stay underneath that as well as you know this the site here is a little bit elevated compared to the rest of the area that's why it's out of the floodplain and so therefore it's you know to the bottom of the wet well we're looking at 25 foot 25 foot depth. Is that what is would likely they generate whatever noise sound there is are those pumps? Some of those pumps would have some minimal noise, but they're, again, they're 25 foot below ground, so it's gonna be pretty minimal. The actual noise contributor would be the odor control unit. Okay. And that was, you know, the analogy that I gave on that was it would be similar to an exterior AC unit, but it's also gonna be back behind the block wall here. Okay, okay, thanks. You may not have the answers to this, but on one of the slides, you showed that for option three, that that could increase the cost by $900,000, which does not include additional engineering work or the purchase of the property. Correct. That is correct. Where would you get that money? That's what I'm hearing. Where would we get? And I decided I'd have to put a birdie in on that question. What year was the bond pulled? He's looking for a rich uncle or a relative. Yeah, you know. What year was the bond pulled for $4 million? I had to deal with Allison on that one. I believe it was 2007. 2007? Okay. Thumbs up or a thumbs down.

[3:03:43] So we've been under the pressure with TCEQ since then. At least then or before then. We'll say that again, Lang. We've been under the pressure of TCEQ since then. Since then. Because of the issues that we have. It's causing the need for the lift station. Okay. Great. I'm going to open up to public comment now. Public comment? First of all, thank you for hearing us out. And I want to say that Daniel and Andy and Russell and Russell have been nothing but available to us the whole time that we've been talking about this. I'm not an engineer. Obviously, by any stretch of the imagination, but because this is such a popular subject in our neighborhood, I've been approached by so many people that there are alternative ways to do this, that it doesn't have to be through a lift station. It does flood in Houston. They have other ways to get around these things. I don't know what the expense would be, but there are other ways to do this. All I ask from the Council is a consideration. bought that property and the lift station wasn't there at the time. I know it's sitting property now. You can basically do whatever you want to with it. You know, like many people in this room, our home is our largest asset, you know, just like your home is. And I've asked several, I'm not going to ask you or anybody in the audience, but who would want this next to their house? I bet you wouldn't. I don't think anybody here would want that. I haven't researched it, but I don't know what the property value would do would happen with that lift station there but I can't imagine that the property value would go up if you had a lift station next door to your house and all I'm asking the council is for consideration for the quiet enjoyment of our home just like everybody else and not put that lift station there it may be final turn to location for it or you

[3:05:43] know something else thank you Russell are you aware of what mr. Munos said about Houston and other areas having a different alternative than a lift station What would that be you student? I haven't looked into what the Houston has you know They have a whole slew of problems that I don't want to touch but um anyway You know what we have looked at several alternatives It has been brought to our attention that you know that these other alternatives were brought up we did You know we were told that SKG had looked into those we have met with them We sat down with them And we looked at all those alternatives that they had reviewed and it was none of the alternatives that they had looked at were anything different than what or short of what we had already looked at. You know, with the budget constraints and the actual, you know, the physical barriers that we have to overcome to get there, you know, those were the biggest drivers of this current project. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Jim Raymond, and we live in the affected community, Santa Rita Greater, Santa Maria area. Just want to say, obviously, our concern about it, my concern as well as, I think, other people that are represented here are what this does to the area. And first, I'll say, you're engineering your staff and done an excellent job of figuring out what's the least cost way to do this, and that's their job. All's job is harder jobs is what can we do, how can we do this and still protect what San Angelo has come to be, you know, which is a destination place for a lot of people, not

[3:07:46] just San Rita Park that we're talking about, but look at all the things that we've done within the community to make it a better place. Now, Santa Maria Park is one of those and it's a beautiful area. As most areas are where they're the oldest, you got the bigger trees, you got you got a lot of things that make it nice. Putting the lift station where it is becomes the problem. Obviously we're gonna have to go do dart work for the pipelines and the underground, but you've got issues with the pump house being where it is and And the pictures don't do a good job, I think, of displaying exactly where it's going to be when you enter the park. It becomes the primary focus. And so putting it up there almost is like putting up a wall. And I was standing what you're talking about building, being very nice, but it's still going to be a wall there. And it just takes away from, I think, everything we've tried to do from the Riverwalk, from Bessayo, from the Red Arroya, and all of the beautification that we've done. Here, we're now taking away from that, and detracting from it in a very obvious way. And I think there has to be another way to do that. I'd encourage you to reconsider. Nina Bean, and one of the councilmen said that these are all over town. I want to know all over town that they're in parks. Are they in other parks? You said there were other lift stations all over town, are they in parks? They are, but they're probably not in this prominent place as the Santa Rita Park. And they're not in clothes like this is proposed to be, so I guess that could be the difference.

[3:09:47] I appreciate what everybody is saying about this, and it's certainly not in my backyard, so I have a different perspective on it. You know, it's, unfortunately, it's one of those things that is, is necessary someplace. And we've got a way whether or not putting it in Joe Minas' backyard is, is the best thing to do for the entire Santa Rita area, or should we spread that the $1.5 million for to move it to alternate three across the rest of the citizens' population. Parks are then. What parks, you said there were another parks? I haven't seen them in other parks. We won't see them in enclosure because all they are are concrete. I just haven't seen those in concrete. There is one right at South Bell Street, right at the corner of the. And it's in a park? Well, it's in a vacant lot right now. Okay, but that's, a vacant lot is different from a park. And I, let me, it's not just Mr. Munyos' backyard. We don't see that area as Mr. Munyos' backyard. We see that area as our park that we enjoy. And children play in that park and people walk their dogs in that park. It's a park that we have enjoyed and it's this big concrete deal. And even though you've tried to beautify, it's not beautiful. But that big severe station will not, or even with the rock wall, it's not beautiful. But I know you aren't concerned about the beauty of it. We are. We're concerned about the enjoyment and the beauty of it. And as far as you're taking out beautiful old mesquite trees, and they may not be beautiful to y'all, but they are beautiful to us. And I lived in Ozona for 33 years.

[3:11:50] My, our family ranch is a big like Snora and Ozona. And when I told people where we were moving, and I told him it's an old mill spa home because he ranched in Ozona. Some people that didn't understand where that was when I explained more, they'd say, oh, we took our picture over there, right in that spot. And I see people taking their pictures there all the time. You know, it's something that we enjoy and it's not just St. Angela that takes pictures there. It's people in Crockett County and Reagan County and Sutton County that like it. You know, they have enjoyed it for years. And I would like for y'all to just consider, I know y'all have been working on this for a long time, but just give us a little more time. Give yourselves a little bit more time for us to come up with a better alternative. And I know that you are all smart women and smart women. And we can all come up with a better solution than this. I have faith that y'all can come up with something better. My name is Donna Sogg. And I'm really appalled at this. But I realize, as everyone else does, that we don't really have the power to control it. But there are some corrections. No one in our neighborhood was notified. I don't know what the protocol is for city council, but if you're gonna build something this ugly in the park, I think the property owners should be notified. That's number one. Number two, the vacant lot, I think, could be purchased. We know the people who own it, and I don't know for sure that they would sell it, but I doubt if they're gonna build a house there. So, and I do think there are other routes to go. If you went, as the city has done and crossed,

[3:13:54] but crossed back over, instead of building the lifting station, next to the Munozis, crossed back over and either go across Washington at the sulfur draw at the sulfur draw or go on and go across that, bake it a lot, and go up and as far as you could and go out. There is a possibility if the River Terrace thought they were going to have their property dug up. They would consent to having you go out to the real conchow on one side of the River Terrace, instead of tearing up their whole property. afternoon. I'm Heidi Brooks. I thank you for the time to give everyone a chance to speak on this. My problem is this. You said a moment ago that this has been going on since 2007, I believe, and we're about to enter the year 2018. So for years, this has been a problem. Only recently did we, as a neighborhood in Santa Rita, get information about this. I do understand there was something in the paper in October. I do read the paper daily. I didn't see it. A meeting was called at San there aren't photographs here today that demonstrate where FEMA's floodplain actually exists and where this spot number one exists, it is feet. It is actually feet. So if FEMA's floodplain floods, this thing will flood also.

[3:15:56] It is so close that where the guidelines came in to being, I'm not sure I really understand. Yesterday it was in the news. Today we have the city council meeting. As Donna mentioned, no one who actually lives backing up to this area. It's a whole block. It's West Avenue D was notified. It became a word of mouth situation. It became Santa Rita Homeowners Association who sent out emails. Numerous people didn't know of this meeting today and either couldn't get off work or we're told that the plan has already, the contract has been signed. We want you all to look at other options. There may be private funding available for this situation. If there really is something in Houston that will work, why not look at this? January 4th or 7th, I don't remember what the date is, is around the corner. You all know it. We're all in the Christmas holidays. We're enjoying the lights down at Santa Rita Park. Nothing's gonna happen between now and January 4th regarding any options that we have that other cities have. One thing that has not been discussed at this meeting is the smell of this lift station. We were told that the new unit that will be utilized has been done I believe in North Carolina and they haven't had any problems but we don't know how long it has been in existence. I I don't think any of you all would want the odor of sewage in your neighborhood. I think we need to look at what other options we have as far as that is concerned and the equipment that they are utilizing, which is supposed to be state of the art equipment, but what is state of the art? How long has it been in use? What possibilities exist of other problems with this?

[3:17:57] I know my time's up, but I want to say that there aren't people monthly having their pictures taken there. There are people there daily having their pictures there. There are people not just Santa Rita people. The whole city goes to that area to take their soccer pictures, their family pictures, their wedding pictures, have picnics, and you're just knocking out a big area of city parks that we love. Thank you for your time. Russell, do you know when that first odor control came out and how long and how many or Andy? Yes, I've had the opportunity to look into the odor control unit. And the odor control unit was recommended to us by our consultant, but I checked references on that. And I spoke to four different systems. One, as mentioned, was in North Carolina. If you're familiar with North Carolina, they have what they call the research triangle area of Brawley, Durham, and Chapel Hill. Inside there, there's a town called Kerry. I've lived in North Carolina, so I'm familiar with Kerry. It's a very fluent city. And when I spoke to that individual, I asked him, I said, where's this going to be, or where's this unit in? He says, by a highway 40, which goes right through North Carolina, it's also by a, I can't remember, some sort of technology commercial building where his comment to me was that no tolerance, zero tolerance for odor control. They put that in. I believe that one was two to three years. He said they have not had any trouble whatsoever. I spoke with a gentleman in South Carolina. It was a residential neighborhood that had a lift station and they had odor complaint after odor complaint. They put one of these units in there. And in fact, he told me that they had a gentleman who was one of the complainers actually come to the board and say thank you for putting that in because of the address problem. I know I also spoke with somebody in Massachusetts, I believe, and one other one. Oh, another one was in Texas. And so each, every four, each of the four individual

[3:19:58] I spoke with spoke very highly of it. One of the general, I think it was South Carolina, actually sent me Excel data showing the reduction of odor control, they actually were monitoring the odor going in and out, and that greater than 99% removal was pretty much stated by all four of them. So with regard to how long it's been a service, most of them I heard were about two or three years, but I think one was even closer to five years. I have a couple of questions. Russell, I think my question is going to be addressed to you. Whether you say, yay. First of all, as I understand it, because a regulatory agency is involved, we can't just leave it as it is. Right, we need to do something. We have to do something. Is there any time limit or deadline for when we have to do it? I don't have a time frame, but it's, you know, this has been going on since. It's overdue. It's overdue, basically. So then one of the ladies spoke to January the 4th being up on us. What would happen if we delayed this? As I understand, the contract has already been awarded. Let me rephrase it. The contract has been awarded to Darnell. Right. So if we don't honor that contract in that start date, what happens? You know, we look at, you know, and I'd probably have to defer to Teresa, so I'm on this. But, you know, we're potentially looking at any cost that our contractor has involved, as well as, you know, potentially looking at, you know, if TCEQ decides to enforce, do some more enforcement action, you know, There could be some involvement there, as well as just further delaying this project,

[3:21:59] kicking the can down the road more or less. So if TCQ got involved, could they potentially fine us? Yes, we could potentially get beginning fines for this. Thank you. What comment? On the stretch of the park. And I want the engineers would be so kind to help me. I would like for them to step off 3550 he doesn't have enough room to do that in this in this building in this know what just right in this area Oh, oh, you can do yeah come from this wall step it over here Russell have you at this point. I think you staked the area is that correct to show in the 30 by 50 is staked out in the field and it shows the exact footprint of what we're talking about. Well, the 3550 is staked out. You cannot see it very well at all. Someone has graciously kind of outlined it for us and wrapped some trees that we're going to lose. I really do want you to visually see this distance in this room, please. Is that too much? It's not, ma'am? I don't have them. No, I don't have my space. We understand what you're trying to say, ma'am. You're trying to show the, as far as the size of what's going into that location. Yeah. Yeah. OK, is there another message, ma'am? We understand the size of it. Thank you.

[3:24:06] My name is Grace Munoz, and I am the resident that you want to put the lift station by. And I want you to understand that the lift station will be exactly probably about 10 feet from my house to where the lift station is at. So it's that close to my residence that the lift station will be located. I'm a director of a department of a major health entity here in San Angelo. And I direct nurses and therapists to go to patients' homes. And we go into homes that are not very well-capped and many times we go into homes that there's feces and urine, and my staff have to have special equipment, shoe covers, gowns, facemask, and head covers, because of the health hazards it promotes them to be in those environments. We provide, we ask the resident if we can help them get help in their environment because it is a health hazard for them and also for my staff. If they ask for that assistance, we get resources for them to get their environment cleaned out. If they do not want assistance with that, then we, as an agency myself, as the director, will not allow my staff to continue in that environment because it is a health issue. Because my staff will physically get sick from continuously smelling that the stool and the urine for just a few minutes. It will physically make you sick just for a few minutes and you want me to live in an area that will be maybe and you're saying you've got state of the art technology but if you just smell this just for a short period of time it will make you physically sick. I know from

[3:26:10] experience I have taken care of patients in environments that were exposed in these environments just for short periods of time. I don't live in these environments like patients do but just exposed to this for short periods of times will physically make you sit. I do not want to live an environment that I'm exposed to this even for a short period of time and I don't think any of y'all would like to have that happen either, having to live an environment, eat, sleep and eat an environment that you're exposed to this at any period of time and I would hope you would take that into consideration also. Thank you. Morning, I'm Blicia Alvar is Harrington, and I just have a question. All kinds of things have been brought up, putting a roof, which it will look just like an outdoor toilet to me, but anyway, has anybody considered the breakage of mechanical equipment? We all know, all the equipment that is mechanical breaks at one time or another. What do we do with all that backup sewer in our neighborhood right next door to my daughter's house? I'm asking how would anybody in this room would like to have a lift station team feet away from your home with the noise with the motors and there will be smell not all the time but occasionally by the constant day and night noise I'm asking y'all to consider this and say, well, I would love to have one of those next to me, ten feet away from me. Thank you so much, and I hope that y'all consider how we all, you know, what we all have in common.

[3:28:18] One thing is the beautification of the sulfur draw. Everybody loves that area. There's the gateway to Santa Rita and we're having a sewer Structure put in there Thank you so much And your Russell can you speak on the behalf of the mechanics and breakdown? What's the backups for it first of all we have a regular routine maintenance on any and all of our live stations? We go around to each one of them and visit them just to make sure that everything's operating correctly as well as we have a It's called SCADA, it's a security control and data acquisition, you know, basically it's monitoring the lift station 24-7, you know, any alerts or alarms that go off at that lift station will be immediately notified via cell phone to somebody at their home or whoever's on call. We have folks that do general maintenance 24-7, 365 year-round. anything else that happens in the in the response of a of a failure? So what happens in the response of a failure is you know we have some what we call we have several options here you know either you know go out to you know definitely go out to the site we have a what we call is a back-contruck where we can vacuum up the actual overflow before it you know and we we've got some back up here just based on the sheer depth of this lift station is 25 foot deep so before that you know comes up out of the wet well we should be able to respond and be able to back vacuum that out and put in new pumps to you know rehab that replace that at that point if we have any electrical outages we have a backup

[3:30:20] generator that automatically kicks on and keeps those pumps running during a storm event or things of that nature or any type of electrical outage. Yes, since we've had so many people come up to the microphone and speak about this, let's go back in and visit the other two options and see where they're at and see if they know it's going to be approximately 1.5 plus million dollars more to do these things but let's just see what we can figure out and maybe we ultimately do as the one lady said delay this. Here's the issue of course we have the option I'm theory that still puts it on somebody else's backyard there in that area so what I'm hearing at this point is nothing short of a gravity system no lift station is what I'm hearing we're often tasked to be as as physically responsible as we need to be, and we are. I mean, we have Steve Hampton that comes through all the time and questions about every little thing, which I appreciate Steve. But regardless, we want to be as physically responsible as we can and look at the system that in place, I definitely understand what everyone is saying here. We know that we're looking at $3.8 million as it stands right now. But if we go strictly with a gravity system, and I'll pose this to you Russell, without any type of a lift station, because again, moving it to area three to put it in somebody else's backyard, and that'll be an issue as well. I can already foresee that. So we're talking about just a gravity system, what kind of a cost are we looking at here? Yes, we've already looked at a gravity, solely gravity system. We're looking at anywhere from five point, you know, it's between five and a half million to six million dollars is what we're looking at from a gravity standpoint solution. We don't have that, you know, there again, we'd have to come back to you for those type of dollars as well. And we're talking about a street closure as far as Washington as well.

[3:32:21] Yes, significant street closers, Jack hammering, the amount of construction that would take and be involved with that would increase the timeframe on this construction anywhere from a year to two years, just to be able to jizzle through that rock or potentially looking at a dynamiting option. We don't wanna go that route because we do have a lot of big, some structures, homes, we've got the manor, or not the manor, the tower, terrace. The river terrace, and there's a lot of concerns with doing dynamite, and who knows what is in table with that. With that option, we're looking at over two million dollars, additional is the project, and aside from that, of course, all the disruption and the street closures and what have you. So, I mean, what I'm trying to say here, of course, is obviously there are other options. There's cost associated with those options as well. And we have to take a look at those. We have to balance that out and take a look at whether put in the lift station in a certain location and maybe the nuisance that that causes, there's that balance out to an additional $2 million project. And do we change it completely at this point? I do understand Joe Munoz, I think the world of the guy, I have a lot of respect for him. But we look at these type of projects we want to do them as physically responsible as we can. And that is a challenge because we can go back and take a look at that, but I can guarantee you that anything that we come back with is going to be very costly. So we're looking at some time-sensitive actions. How fast can we start January 4th? It's a 300-day project. We start on the Santa Fe part. at what point will they be trickling over to that point where they start the construction of the lift station? No, we've seen AEP out there starting their high voltage line towards it that one day when

[3:34:21] I went to it. Yes, we put a halt on that just until we had this meeting. You know, it's hard to say exactly where we would be at in construction as far as if we started at the Santa Fe golf course and made our way back towards the Sulfur Springs Park, you know, I would assume it would take at least two or three months to get to that point. But you know, if we go this direction, if we go with the current project, you know, you're almost eliminating any other gravity main options. And you know, I tried to avoid tapping into this topic, but it was mentioned in the public comment. Acceptance of private funds sets of precedents. If this was in the location, say, my district. North Chabron. North Chabron for Concho. Where private funds can easily just be rallied together, that lift station is going to have to go where the design and engineering showed to be. But, you know, Sanorita is a very tight-knit community. I don't know who would be willing to donate privately if they can make up those funds. A million dollars, but that's why I go back on that time-sensitive project portion. If that can be in discussion, And then, if the money is there, it all pivots around that empty lot, but they are willing to sell at what cost that would have to be in part of the private funds also.

[3:36:21] The bond was pulled for $4 million, we're at $3.884, a little over $100,000 in our leniency of ourselves. at whatever, I don't know how fast we can get that done, how fast private funds can be pulled together. I think we just take, tell you that it's taken about 18 months for Daniel to negotiate the properties for the ABDP flooding situation. So it won't happen overnight, especially if that particular property owner knows that we need that for this lift station. And again, as I mentioned a while ago, that still puts it on somebody else's backyard, though. I mean, you still have residential areas in that location. So you may have individuals that will come up here and do the same thing and speak up and say, we don't want it here, it's right down the street and that still might be an issue anyway, so. Right now, if private funds aside the best option, what would be to reduce the footprint at the communication? So Ideally, hypothetically if we can Let's say proceed with that But if somehow And works with citizens if we can get those private funds Established who knows how much we can get I don't know Something in the works before January 4th or before they even start making their way across the conch over the river So what you're needing today is direction. So right now, we don't have those private funds, so the direction should be proceed with what we have if those private funds come available. Yeah, I also say Theresa. Once we, the contract, we're capped on how much we can modify that contract amount.

[3:38:22] So it's a 25% cap on the total value. So depending on how the engineering works out and the new route and what everything's gonna cost, which I don't know if we have, we don't have real accurate numbers, we have a range right now. Yeah, we have budget. We could exceed the 25% that we're allowed to modify the current contract anyway. So starting the current project under that current contract and then change ordering it later could be illegal obstacle. Theresa, we were to hold off and come back in January and again, we know we're looking at January 4th timeframe to come back and present the cost of the other options and maybe even have an opportunity to, So I'm, you know, what would be the repercussions on that? I know that you touched about that a little bit of a while ago for us all as far as the cost associated with the current contractor. This is something that I'd hate to do, I really would, but when you take a look at that, Teresa. We remember we changed the council meeting, so the next council meeting is going to be January 9th, so we're not going to have a council meeting before that January date. We would have to talk with the contractor to see what kind of options we would have in the agreement and the contract that you guys are ordering? I need a, sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Theresa, it would be legal for us to accept private funds for a project like this. That's my concern. Is that legal? I think that we could find a way to make that work under the private partnership components in the law that we have to, we would have to look at it, but there's probably a way that we could make it work. I think the bigger concern is the precedent that Lane has mentioned in what you do in that situation. Especially moving the lift station to a different location where it affects other people as well. That's why I'm saying that really the only option that I'm hearing at this point is anything short of, they don't want the lift station. They basically will be a gravity system, which wouldn't affect anyone as far as the move with the lift station to a different location.

[3:40:22] Based on site number three, the floodplain protrudes into where that lift station couldn't go as far back. It's gonna look like it's gonna have to start or border farther up towards the street. It's correct. Well, let me just point out the other issue with the property acquisition, as we did look briefly at that property and we realized that it's owned by a trust. So when you take any kind of action with a trust, you're usually dealing with multiple people. It's not just one person you go to and ask. And I've never had a really easy negotiation with a trust when it comes to a property deal. And any other route we would have to look to make sure the city owns all that property. I know that a couple of routes that were considered the property owners were absolutely adamant that they weren't going to sell so our only option was condemnation and there really wasn't a willingness since there was another option available to condemn somebody's property for that. I just want everyone to understand that if we do move to site location 3, Washington will be closed for a period of time. I think to Daniel's point lane. we're going to run into the same situation with other neighbors not wanting the lift station there too. So we're looking at an additional however much we said to go to three, we don't know what that would be. We don't know how long the negotiations may take. And then TCEQ could come in and start finding us for not, for continuing to prolong this. So I guess if we looked at, you know, not having the lift station, doing the total gravity thing, am I, is that correct? I'm just doing with no lift station, and we incurred that additional amount. So then are we saying that that extra expenditure would then be spread across all the citizens of the city?

[3:42:25] Is that what we're saying? Right, that extra $2 million or whatever that figure is, 1.7, then the rest of the city then puts that particular bill for that amount. Then I think this chamber is going to be too small to hold. The citizens, if we look at going that route, I don't know, I guess we. Well, you've got at least one person in the audience that took us to task on purchasing vehicles this morning. And so I'm sure he's going to be interested in where we're going to acquire that particular money and how we're going to do it. So are we needing a vote action direction? I think we need some direction on whether or not we want to change the plan. So I mean, you can do that by actually taking a vote. And then if you're going to change the plan, we'll need some direction on what to do with the current contract. All right. Let me ask you a question. You know, nothing's more well known here. I don't want to go the wrong way. I mean, Santa Rita's special to all of us. I mean, I lived there for a while, long story short. We all get the passion of that neighborhood. So is there a way to take this layout, use a gravity station, crossing the Ivy main twice is really risky. I'm not going to vote that way. All right, so that number three, there's some risk with everything. I think city and staff and Rick, my call of y'all have done is the least risky, most financially responsible way we can go with this. but we have some citizens here that it's, you know, it's their home, it's in their backyard. Can we use the existing system with the gravity flow and not put in the lift station? So that's what we talked about earlier. You know, it goes back to capacity issues, as well as easements and acquisition of those. We would have to change our easement and gravity flow pattern. We would have to change the pipeline. We would have to change that up significantly, as well as, you know, the constructability of it.

[3:44:25] You know, there's, you know, the sewer main basically, at some point when it gets down to the control river, it's paralleling the control river, you know, over there where all the Christmas lights are. I mean, it's very steep. So the answer, this is no. It's got to be this system with the lift station. If you go gravity flow, we've got to change the whole plan. This is the most economic property, everything. Solution that we've been able to come up with. Okay. the email that you sent me on the city easements when I was questioning do we have easement through sulfur draw. I'm putting a if we go to site three and then down sulfur instead of backtracking. When we met out there your diagram shows that we do not have easement but what I've heard I still need to be confirmed but but it is city-owned property with the jurisdiction of upper Colorado. Is that why that little area is not being shown in yellow as an easement towards us? Because it is upper Colorado jurisdiction. And if so, what would it take to get a letter in MOU from them stating that we go to site three we track down sulfur draw, meet up exactly where we were and live oak where it's coming was going to be coming down. This is all hypothetical. Who knows. Right. To my dollars, you know, the upper Colorado River Authority doesn't have any actual jurisdiction. You know, what they they're looking at, you know, is how clean and, you know, yeah, hydraulic standpoint of the river I'm wondering who who would have that authority there if it's not showing up on our map the city actually owns a lot of that property along the Concho River and the sofa draw area there are some points along the sofa draw where it is privately owned you know the property lines just basically come up

[3:46:26] to the center line of the the draw and you know there there are some drainage easements through there, but they don't always connect, but also those are drainage easements, they're not sewer line, they're utility easements, you know, that would have to be something else that we'd have to look at. Kind of the problem that we ran into with the majority of this project, you know, looking at trying to go to a gravity standpoint was the easements, you know, we had we'd have a little piece here, a little piece there, but we didn't have anything continuously, so those are the problems that we faced. This is that rock in a hard place that we're we're dealing with with that time sensitive and all the easements at site three is actually possible requiring it and engineering getting across that 39-inch OHI water line closing down Washington for a time period and funding. It's on the chopping block for me right now and I might I might be ruining someone's Christmas, but right now, like I said, we have to take some kind of action and the only action that we have readily available is to keep it there. But work on, what you all think, work on seeing about acquisition, site three, engineering studies across Washington and Sulphur, underneath the water line, and jurisdiction down Sulphur draw. Because if we backtrack, if we go down Sulphur draw, that would save a backtracking of at least one 39 inch water line. Am I right? I follow what you're saying. The 39 inch raw water main basically cuts through here like this. So no matter what we do, we're crossing that at least once, maybe twice.

[3:48:32] I think the danger here too, Glenn, is we already have a contractor, you know, for site one, and everything else you're talking about is exploring site three. When the actual work begins, or when the actual contractor comes on board, I mean this is a whole totally new direction that we'd be going with. It's almost like like we're no longer using the contractor for that one item. We need to take some kind of action now, so the action would be to continue, but it sounds like I need to set up a meeting with citizens and legal to see. I'll start with meeting with me and then a meeting with citizens, but I tend not to want to give advice to citizens. We can also have a discussion today and executive session regarding this under our broad general reporting. I mean, if you'd like to discuss before. I suspect, Lane, that if we made a decision to make this change to site three, the people along South Park are gonna have the same issue that the people that Washington and Paso Vaca have. So maybe back at this for another session at some point in time in the future. Do we need to do anything because the contract with Arnell is actually started on January 4th? Do we need to do anything in delaying all of that? And how do we do that? Yeah, so I was, I don't know what we would have to do exactly. I mean, if we do delay this, we have to look at potential, we have to look at schedule with him on his subcontractors and any other work that he has scheduled as far as pushing this back. And if there's some cost involved in doing that, we would just need to visit with him. I can't speak for him. unfortunately more to do anything outside of option one then then the citizens understand and so if that's the direction and this council moves

[3:50:32] then they're that with what conversations with with our other constituents. No Lane you just asked me if I had anything else it seems like what What we might end up doing is just kicking this can down the road and coming right back here. Teresa, did I understand you to say we could have some, not take a vote, but have some discussion because I'm just, you know, we just keep going round and round. Can we have some? I can probably answer the procedure. Okay. Okay. Okay. So if a motion is made to go with a different direction and it fails and you've got to consider that you have five members here. So if three were to vote against any motion that was made things would continue as is already scheduled because the project has been awarded it is going forward unless something is done. So if you can't get a majority of at least three to two here, get a four vote right? Four four votes we can't three to two then get us anywhere. Right it'll have to be four one I'm sorry to because it's got to be a majority of the council so yeah anyway if you don't get four votes for any change it's gonna go on as scheduled and our next meeting is January 9th and then we'll be into the project just this procedure I will say this though I do know all the dynamics associated with the other options two three or the other one I talked about the city staff recommendation still holds that option one and that's going to be our recommendation at this point we are going to stick with that and again I know that it is it is effect specific individuals but again when I look at the cost associated with it and also the other options and dynamics associated with it I know how much more that's going to cost as well so our recommendation still

[3:52:34] is with one. City Council Councilman, my name is David Dornell, I am Dornell Construction LLC, and I understand the concerns of the people that live around that park area, it's a beautiful area. I will tell you this, I put in in my lifetime as a contractor probably 30 plus this station, I put in most of them in this town, out by a good fellow rec camp, various places around town. I'm putting two in in the REN Texas right now at a waste water treatment plant. The city has this order unit that they're putting in is $60,000 cost me $60,000 for that unit. And what I understand it is the best that money can buy. I don't think you'll have any older, zero, zero, none. Now, they're putting up a rock facade. Out of the 30 list stations I've put in in my lifetime, there's not one that's got a rock facade around it. They're a chain link fence, or they're wooden fences. And that's because most of these towns don't have the money to decorate their live stations. They're trying to fill in pot holes. Now, as far as the scheduling, we're gonna drill underneath the river and install that forest man. The contractor I'm using is one of the largest drilling contractors in the state of Texas. I'm slotted to have him here January the 8th.

[3:54:34] He has 30 days. he's gonna stay 30 days to do that drill. If we don't, if I call him, tell him that this is postponed, then he'll get back to me when he can come back. And I don't know when that would be. Now, as far as the lift station, once we ordered the pumps, and the paperwork's been signed off on and approved, they're 14 weeks out. So, if we start this project, I can't do anything that list days for 14 weeks anyway, because I don't have no pumps put in, no wet well. So if you wanna kick the can down a row for 14 weeks, while I'm working, probably isn't gonna affect me anyway. If you wanna move the location, you got 14 weeks. The only thing that might change is the depth of the wet well. Right now, we're at 25 feet, you move to that new location, we're 35. And it's all rock from start to finish. What we're at now, we've got approximately six for the rock in the bottom of that well. I know these people don't want that list station to that corner, but I kind of feel like once it's there after, I mean, I live in the west part of town and I live at the end of Hallie Court and there's these huge electrical wires across my backyard. I mean, I'm within 100 feet of that main transmission line and everybody says, why would you want to live down or with that transmission line in your backyard? You know, I don't even notice it anymore because I've gotten used to it. And I think it'll be the same thing with this list station. I think after a while, people just drive and they won't notice it. Now, if it was a chain link fence with pipes sticking up like you see around town everywhere else, And I could see their concern.

[3:56:34] As far as the gravity line, I've spent a lot of time out there with the engineering department, with Russell and various ones looking at that gravity situation. It's not 1.7 million that you're going to spend extra if you go gravity. It's closer to 8 million. That was my estimate to them what it would cost to do gravity versus this lift station. So that's, you know, you're doubling the cost of this contract. Mr. Darnell, that has to do with the material that you'd have to be digging through, is that correct? Want me? It has to do with the material you'd have to be digging. Yeah, it's solid conglomerate. That old neighborhood sat in on one big conglomerate rock and it's very, very costly. The bore under that, the bore under Washington drive to this new list station is 200, my cost was $250,000 dollars from this same boring contractor. They can drill anything but it takes special drill heads and they caught the drill head that he has to use he he done him on it. It cost him $20,000 a week just to rent the thing to use so it's it's very very very costly because of the rock that's that's the killer thing this the cheapest best route for the citizens of this town. I was born and raised here and I appreciate the fact that you're trying to spend the taxpayers dollars and you know sometimes you know sometimes you got to take the hard road and say you know we know you don't like this but a million dollars you're going to spend just because you know the aesthetics of the thing may not be pleasing to some folks. That would upset me personally as a tax player. I appreciate your interest and expertise and time on our behalfs. But we keep talking about

[3:58:51] the time issue and the city's been talking about this for years. The citizens only learned about it in November. So I would encourage you to maybe explore other options. Maybe look at number three, it would not be exactly like the one by the Munoz house because it would be more than 10 feet away from anybody else. It is up high, it's on the brushy part of self-redraw not the beautiful St. Augustine part of self-redraw and just because we've got a lot of bright smart minds let's explore every avenue that might be available to us. Thank you. I'm not sure who this question goes to but what I heard Mr. Darnell say was that that if we give the engineering department now, the direction to go with what the staff is recommending that that would give us 14 weeks, consider if we wanted to continue this way or not. Did I understand that correctly? It's in comparison to one and three. So what he's saying is they could start on the boring part of it. if we look at option three, if we could do something within 14 weeks for acquisition purposes. But not necessarily option three. I'm just saying, would we have up to 14 weeks to pursue other. Once he orders it, we've got to figure out where we're gonna put that particular lift station because we're committed to that cost at whatever that, whatever that price. That was the delivery time of the lift station. Oh, 14 weeks from the time you ordered to deliver

[4:00:51] these 14 weeks. Yeah. OK. All right. So we'd have to decide. So we'd have a lift station period and we have to decide where to put it. Great. That's what Tom said. It's the 14-week lead time to order that. OK. Well, I think we have kind of beat this horse today. And I don't know how Lane will feel about this, but I would make a motion that we accept the staff's proposal. Can I do that I'd like to say one thing I Don't want to kick it down, but I think we got some a little bit of time. It's very time-sensitive like I said I know there's a motion, but I would probably say in regards to not having the private funds not having site three acquired as the property right now we have to stick with with site one and limit the the footprint but We'll do some work with the citizens if we can acquire the funds, if we can acquire that lot. I'll talk with them and talk with legal to see what our options are. It looks like we would be able to have a little bit of time and to kick it and make it work. I think the thing if you got a motion in a second, I presume that's your second that wasn't my second to well Can I amend it? That'd be an amendment to her motion We acquire funding Or that lot is it all? Circles around site three if we can acquire it and get the funding Because right now we have to put a time stamp on that. They were talking about doubling the price though.

[4:02:54] Is that what I understood to go to option three? Was doubling the price? And we had the limit of upping it by 25% position cost. And we would probably have to put a time limit on acquiring the property and acquiring the funds. What would be too long, two months from this point? you're cutting it really close. I mean, if he doesn't have, you know, he's not able to purchase the pumps and things like that, you know, I mean, we're because it doesn't, it sounds like we have, we really need the bore across the Contra River. We have a little bit of time to make our way up for the the socking of the pipes. We have a little bit of time. That's all at the end of the project. The big thing is the the the boring operations that he that David had mentioned earlier as well as purchasing the pumps and the material to construct the lift station. I mean, basically we either need to move forward or we need to... So remember that we can't make any changes to this. That's greater than 25% of the contract. So if we start down this road and don't delay this, I'll come to January, start the archetype. And depending on what we encounter in this, depending on what we encounter during construction, We could easily you know exceed that 25% you know, you know with the existing contract that we have now And we've looking at moving it to site number three, you know We don't for brings you to 4.8 million even right? It's another nine hundred and 74 There's a lot of variables for three But there's a lot of variables quite frankly that I think that that timeline that you're talking about is too tight right it's too tight we either need to move forward or we need to stop and read

[4:04:57] do this project I'll make a second to Billy's motion motion by Billy second by Tom we need to for one change it keep it the way it is all in favor of proceeding with the current bid say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Can we go ahead and do D? Well, it's that bill here. Daniel, we've got a crew here a little bit for D. Is that a hard one to go through? He isn't David. Let me see. Yes, David. I hear you. I'm calling. We do D. Can we do D as the mayor? We're going to. Oh, I should turn on the microphone.

[4:06:59] So we are going to go to item D. It is first reading and public hearing of an ordinance abandoning 125.55 linear feet. That's 7,534 square feet. of the North Seller Street right away between Bel Air Avenue and the alley north of and parallel to Bel Air Avenue and we have John James here to discuss. Thank you again John James, Director of Planning Development Services. This is a street abandonment and quickly you can see here this is Seller Street coming up here. When this neighborhood here was platted the street was planned to be extended and so you've got this right-of-way for a street right at the end of a cross-bell air but when this neighborhood to the north was developed that street was never extended through so that street was never built so it's just really a vacant vacant right-of-way these two property owners have requested to abandon that street and they would each take their proportion of half of the existing street right of way. Here you can see the plat or the property boundaries of each. Just looking at that again, no street was ever constructed right in here in this location. I won't read through all of these but staff is recommending approval of the abandonment. It doesn't create any issues for the public. It can never be constructed as a street because of the homes behind it. And so we do recommend abandoning that street. Are there any utilities there? I do not believe there are any utilities again because that was never extended through. In a case where there are utilities, one of our

[4:09:01] common conditions is that they have to make accommodation for those to be moved. But in in this case, I don't think that is applicable. As I mentioned, the staff does recommend approval. The Planning Commission also unanimously recommended approval. Two conditions, they have to re-plat those properties to incorporate what was right of way into those adjacent properties. And the city does have an assessment fee schedule. They would have to pay basically to purchase back that property. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Barry, it's in your district. Would you like to ask a question? have any questions asked but I would move for approval. All in favor? All of those. We would need those for a public hearing. We have a public comment time period before we take that vote. Is there any public comment on this abandonment request? If not, we will take the vote. All in favor? Any nays? approved 6-0. We will now move into executive session. Executive session on the provision of government code title 5 open government ethics subtitle A open government chapter 5-5-1 open meeting sub chapter D exceptions to requirement that meetings will open under the following sections A section 5-5-1.072 deliberations about real property, at one, the San Angel Regional Airport, and two, four, five South Chadburn and the Section 551.0712 consult with the Attorney with the Governmental Body, seeks the advice of its attorney on a matter in which the duty of the Attorney to the Governmental Body under the Texas disciplinary rules of professional conduct of the state bar of Texas, clearly conflicts with this chapter regarding Rita Douth. We will be gone about 45 minutes at 2.20 p.m. and we will start with, let's see where we

[4:11:15] are, item C on the regular agenda, which John James will present, the first reading in public hearing for an ordinance amending Chapter 12, planning and development article 12.03 manufactured homes and Mobile Homes Division 2, Mobile Homes Section 1, 2.03.03 temporary manufactured home, mobile home or building installation, which would add recreational vehicles subject to a concept plan, notifications, and permitting if applicable and allowing for a one-year extension on your own. Yeah, thank you, John James, Director of Planning and Development Services. This is a fairly straightforward amendment. There's currently we have an ordinance that allows mobile homes and manufactured homes to be placed on a lot that is a construction site temporarily while the construction is happening on the site. But the ordinance that ordinance does not allow RVs to have a similar To be placed on the property. This would simply amend the ordinance to allow recreational vehicles on those sites With the permission of City Council is how the current ordinance is written, but I'll I'll bring up in a minute that this was heard by the Planning Commission yesterday, and they recommended a change to that It would allow for one or more manufactured homes and RVs on a construction site with City Council approval. There is already a fee for this that would not change. They would have to show us a concept plan, basically a conceptual layout of the site where the construction is happening and where the mobile home or RV would be located. It could be authorized for up to a year with a one year extension. it would require written notice to the surrounding property owners within 200

[4:13:17] feet and a public hearing a building permit would be required to ensure placement meets health and safety codes. Staff's recommendation, and this is actually incorrect, this was heard by them yesterday, staff's recommendation is to approve the ordinance as presented. The Planning Commission discussed this and in In some way speaking for you all, they thought that this was unnecessary to come to the council that this should be something that should be allowable by staff to approve placing an RV or mobile home on a construction site. I'll basically lead that up to you all. Our intent was not to change the ordinance since the ordinance already requires these to come to council. We just left that the same. you probably suspect we've not seen many of these in fact since I've been here I don't recall a single one so they don't happen very often so it's not like you're gonna be overwhelmed with these on the other hand the Planning Commission made some good arguments that should we delay a construction project or remodeling project for them to have to apply and come to City Council for a public hearing and a decision by you all so the recommendation that comes to you from the Planning Commission is to revise this draft ordinance. Again, we haven't revised it yet since they just acted yesterday, but if you choose to follow their recommendation, we can bring that back to you on second reading. But their recommendation is to have this go-to-staff, staff can approve or deny it. If either way that happens, they would still have the ability to appeal that to the Planning Commission and then appeal that to the City Council. So we're basically mainly today looking for your direction on whether or not you want to keep that under your purview or you want to shift it to either the Planning Commission or the staff for those approvals. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Do we have any questions or comments

[4:15:18] from any council members? Tommy, I see your head shaking. Question, yeah. Did I hear you say somewhere in early part of the presentation that this is not a permanent thing, these placement of these manufactured mobile RVs is 12 months is that what I heard you said. Twelve months with a possible one extension for another 12 months. Okay. This is primarily for construction projects is when this happens, right? That's correct. So the development of a project. And just for a little more background information the reason this has come up now there is a church that's going through a remodeling project. They have been they have been the recipient of a group, a national group that comes in, they bring six or eight folks in RVs that are plumbers, carpenters, you know, they're all retired but they come in and do this for churches. They'll park their RVs on the site for six months, eight months, a year, help the church remodel and then they leave. But under our current ordinance, RVs weren't unallowable use for this and so that's the reason we're proposing to expand it to RVs. Or just as my input. I like letting staff deal deal with that I don't I don't think that needs to go the planning Commission or the Council I like staff then can I have a motion? Is that your motion I would move that the I guess it is it at staff level now? No, it must go to day today the mobile homes that would be used on a construction site would come to City Council for approval Okay, I would move that that that this be allowed But it goes to staff and that's a staff decision and then the appeal process exists if they need to go through the And is your preference appeal to Planning Commission and then an appeal to Council or it could go straight to Council? I guess my preference would be appeal to Planning Commission and then to Council if if it has to go that far I would hope Hope that it wouldn't but then we have a second. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'll second Here he already seconded, but did you have a comment before that clarification that the way it's worded now It does require notification of the surrounding properties and a public hearing

[4:17:21] Typically, we don't do that when it's a decision made by staff. We could still notify. Public hearing is a little awkward. We don't really have any other circumstance that I'm aware of where we hold a public hearing that's just held by staff. So I guess I would look for your input on that. Do you want us to notify the surrounding property owners? And if so, we could just solicit their feedback without a formal public hearing. I would say solicit feedback, it wouldn't be. This again is primarily or is intended to be simply for projects that are under construction and development. This wouldn't be I go out and buy a lot of a lot and all of a sudden I'm going to pull my RV on that lot and start living on that lot. This is specifically to the subject of property that is under development and remodel. That is my understanding. That's the key part to make sure that that happens. To what my motion is made, yes. Yes. All right. We have a motion and a second and so I must ask for public comment. Steve Hampton. I agree with Tommy, but mostly, but I think it ought to be just kind of like the enforcement when they complain, then it could be put into the appeal process. Thank you. Any further comment? If no further comment, we will ask for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay. So passes 6-0. We will now move into item E. First reading in public hearing of an ordinance amending chapter 12, planning and development exhibit a zoning ordinance article for specific use standards to allow for reduced setbacks for accessory structures

[4:19:21] with certain conditions with the RS-3 zoning district. Thank you. Again, John James, Director of Planning and Development Services. The RS-3 zoning district, it's a fairly rarely used zoning district, although we do have a number of small pockets around the community. It's basically for what we call patio homes or zero lot line homes, typically smaller lots where one wall of the home is built right on the property line. other wall of the home is built 10 feet from the other property line and when you have these in a row then you effectively have 10 feet between each building but again fairly narrow lots so they're they're squished in a little more and so that's the typical development pattern for these. What we've seen and you'll see some pictures is in some of these areas over time people have built patios, those kinds of structures within that 10-foot setback area. And currently under the ordinance, that 10-foot area is intended to be remained clear, no structures whatsoever. Partly for fire protection reasons. Ten feet is kind of the standard building separation for fire control purposes. And I know we have fire folks here that can talk more about that if you have questions. what this would do is allow some reduced setbacks. We noticed there's a problem with this in those certain neighborhoods. And so we tried to look at, well, instead of requiring 10 feet, can we lessen that requirement somewhat? And so what we've come up with here is kind of a compromise, a middle ground, and I'll go into that in just a second. So this is no change, but one side must be at the property line or a maximum of one feet away. On the other side, it shall remain 10 feet unless it meets all of these conditions. Anything into that 10 foot area has to be noncombustable or limited combustibility,

[4:21:22] which can include fire retardant wood. It has to be unenclosed and unencumbered, which basically means it can't be, it can't have walls and the roof has to be somewhat open. So it could be like a pergola with slats. It couldn't be a solid roof. Again, it's largely for fire protection regions so that fires wouldn't spread more quickly between adjacent homes. I mentioned the substantially open structure, which could also allow a retractable awning, so it could be a solid covered awning as long as it's retractable and it meets a fire protection standard of that limited combustibility. So if all of those three conditions are met, then that setback can be reduced to five feet instead of the normal 10 feet. Accessory structures may not cover more than 30% of the yard and the side or rear yards. That's already a requirement. It's just pointing out here that on these small lots, sometimes you bump up against that limit of how much of the lot you can cover with structures. Also must be to the side of the rear. structures still wouldn't be allowed out into the front yard. Again, that's already a requirement, but we're just restating that to make that clear. And the Planning Commission felt strongly that the building permit should be required, partly because of the fire safety issues in these circumstances. Not all burglars or patio cover type structures require a building permit. So some of those can be built today without coming in to get a permit, but the planning commission felt that in these circumstances where we're allowing them closer than normal to the adjacent property line, then in those cases a building permit should be required regardless. So here's some examples, and you can see here, in fact this one it's a little hard to tell, but this patio cover actually extends under

[4:23:22] the eve of the house next door. So I think that's an example that is not built to building code or fire code and could create significant problems. Same here you can't really see from the bush but that one is almost to the next house over. And again these would still not be allowed under the proposed ordinance. And so one issue that we'd like some feedback on is if you adopt this ordinance as is we would likely be going out to enforce against these that are already not only in violation of the current rules but would still be in violation of the new rules. And these are some fabric type covers. This one I think is one that it's again hard to tell from these pictures. I think this is one that we believed was in compliance. So it maintains that five feet and this is another one that would not be in compliance. again just a couple more pictures. I don't know if it's this one we have a picture of one that's literally attached to the home next door and so again I'll defer to the fire folks on explaining exactly why that's problematic from a fire standpoint but these are and again I'll remind you many of these should have required permits that the folks who constructed them did not get but in any case our illegal construction that doesn't meet our codes today. This is just a graphic explaining what would be allowed. Again you could extend five additional feet into the side yard but this five feet would still have to remain unobstructed with at least that five foot buffer area. So staff does recommend approval of this. That includes not only planning staff this was reviewed by a group of planning building as well as the fire marshals office and we're all in agreement that this is allowing more than what's allowed today but still protecting the fire safety concerns

[4:25:30] that we would have in terms of what should be allowed and this did go to the planning commission at their November meeting and they approved this recommendation with a 6-0 vote. So are you saying that those people who are non-conforming right now would have to take would not be grandfathered into this new policy that they would have to take those structures down? That's correct. Again, normally structures that were compliant at the time are grandfathered and allowed to continue because these were never compliant, that those have always been in violation of our current rules. They were never constructed legally in the first place and so would not get the benefit of grandfathering. Billie, I think some of these are in your district. Would you like to speak to this? A lot of those are in my district. In fact, Rick and John drove me around to show me what some of the issues are with those. And John, my question, I have a question before I make a motion, but would there be some sort of time frame given to those that are non-conforming, to take those down, would we have a process or some kind of guidelines to... Yes, our normal practice is to work with property owners. We would likely first send out either a letter or a door hanger or something to these homes in violation, letting them know the situation, asking them to contact us, and for sure we would give them some time to come into compliance. We would just be dealing with those that never followed the procedure and got a permit. Correct. There are some out there that did get the permits and did build meeting our current standards and any of those would of course be allowed to continue. Even though they may be a fire or safety hazard. Well, if they meet our current standards and got the permits, then we don't believe they're a fire hazard because they maintain, in this case, the current standard is a 10 foot separation

[4:27:31] from the neighboring home. But, okay. If they're non-conforming and it is a safety hazard, even though they got a permit and didn't, would they have had to follow the permit, our permitting office would have followed up on that? Yes, if they got a permit, they would have had to show us drawings of what they're going to build and it would have been in compliance. So did Chief Dunn or somebody want to speak from the fire safety? Good afternoon Mayor Council. Chief Dunn, Fire Department. I've seen some of the things that they've added to the deal and that would be the minimum. I mean from my opinion I would tell you 10 feet is too close between houses because the radiant heat. We've had several fires over the last year that have caught the adjacent houses on fire from cars and carports or grills beside them. item, but most certainly nothing less than that. We have to be able to get down the sides to deal with the exposures if we have a fire, which means we'll be running hose lines down through there. The pictures where you have attachments that run under deal, what happens is when fire goes up it rolls in a roll under those eaves. It will go directly into the attic so that adjacent house be burning in there for quite a while before we ever know it happens and you'll lose a second house and this is what happens on a lot of these kind of situations. So it can become an issue for us most certainly if you adopt that and there's a lot a lot of times that you can't tell if it's

[4:29:31] behind the fence whether they've closed off that entire area Canyon Creek was one of those that we ran into problems with where there was no room between it caught the Jason house on fire and we were in there trying to stop it from going up to and we had no room to operate because of what what had happened behind a closed-off area. So it can be a problem, but if I understood John's presentation correctly, there would be a minimum of five feet in some instances between houses. Yes. So I thought I heard you say the minimum needed to be the 10 feet. Well I'm I'm telling you the structure deal right now the code says 10 I'm just telling you from a firefighting perspective that is so close that you have other structures catch on fire because of radiant heat now they're not proposing putting a structure in there from my understanding they're talking about putting some fire resistant or fire retardant post adding a little thing but we most certainly have to have a pathway through there to be able to get hose lines down the side because if you have a larger house I don't care take any neighborhood and the fires in one of the back bedrooms. Generally speaking, we're going to come down the side and through the front and try to pinch that off. And we may end up having to come through a back door or a side window to get to that. Mr. Coleman, would you like to add? Even though you have that five feet, you'll have limited or non-combustability on your construction materials. So you're within the balance. I don't know who would have the answer to this question, but do we have have any idea how many nonconforming properties we may have? You have not looked citywide. We did look at a sampling. We just looked in your district at the area we drove around. We looked at about two or three blocks of homes.

[4:31:32] I think it was 30 or 40 homes. And we found 16 or 18, maybe a few more, that had these kinds of structures, probably three fourths of which were in violation that would be too close under the current ordinance or under the proposed ordinance. Do we have a plan that we're going to do this citywide, wherever we have the patio homes? I think we would probably want to do a review of all of those. Again, there's not many of these, just to sprinkling those in the Southland area but probably the largest block of these, but there are a few sprinkled out around, but I think going out and inventorying those areas to see how many we have would be the first step in then contacting those homeowners to let them know what the rules are and how they need to do with it. Okay, well, Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the staff recommendation that has been presented. Is there a second? any public comment with no public comment we will take a vote all in favor say aye any opposed nays passes 6-0 next is item F consider resolution approving a new schedule of rates and charges for new and renewal leases for airport property and premises at San Angel Regional Airport. Good afternoon, Mayor Council, City Manager, Luis Elgisado, your Airport Director. It's that time of the year again, where we're going to discuss rates and charges at the airport. Quick history, it was established by us in 2007. City Council approved the current rates and charges in 2014. And the proposed rates and charges were brought to the airport advisory board in November 15th with a unanimous vote. Some of the regulations that require our rates and

[4:33:34] charges from the FAA, basically there's two major ones that airports fees for ernautical uses must be fair and reasonable, and the airport sponsor, in this case the city, shall maintain a fee and schedule structure that makes the airport as sustainable as possible. With that, let's start right away with the proposed rate. The t-hanger storage area, this is a new rate that we're recommending for this year. We looked at comparable storage units in San Angelo, and we're proposing $90 a month for unit CDE in F and $120 a month for units A and B, the average rate in San Angeles 141.50 for that rate. I mean whenever you want I'll just continue. May I ask the question and when it says based on airport survey, what is that survey? We surveyed the some storage units in San Angela, and that includes A-plus super storage, affordable storage and annual self-storage, sunset storage, et cetera. And some of those would be air conditioning controlled or climate controlled, et cetera. Correct. And these t-hangers are not climate controlled. Correct. And we averaged 43 cents a square foot on those. Continue. The next is an aeronautical rate, DFP, or an article rate. This is for conventional hanger FBO permitted use. Current rate is 125, proposed rate is 130 square foot. This is the CPI increase from the current rate, and this rate has not been increased since 2007. But we, even if we change them today, we have long-term leases with our two FBOs so that it will not be impacted until the leases get renegotiated. Question or comment, we're raising it $5. It's been 10 years since we've had a rate increase.

[4:35:35] And all we're looking at is $5 over 10 years. Five cents. Five cents, I'm sorry. So we're increasing it five cents over a 10 year period. 10 years, and that's, that's. Yeah, I not have some bigger impact than that. Not, not in the case, we did go down a little bit and then started coming back up for the 10 years span. Yeah, that wasn't too much of an increase. OK. And I don't want to comment there. OK. Where are the leases up about the two that you have? We have long-term leases. I do not recall, I believe, is 10 more years on Skyline and I believe 15 long-term leases. Sorry, I do not remember. Next one is T-hanger, 40 units, 200 a month currently. We're proposing two or five per month. This rate was increased three years ago from 150 to 200. The average of those is 251 and we surveyed a lot of general aviation airports for this rate. And then the 60 foot unit from 260 to 300 and the average is 361. My comment on this is that the 60 foot units were increased 15% and the 40 foot units were increased $5. Why didn't we use the same percent increase on both units? Three years, three years ago we did not increase the 60 foot units, those have been the same since 2009 increase, the 40 foot units were increased three years ago from 150 to 200. That was at the recommendation of the advisory board, so I figured a five dollar increase right now would be sufficient instead of staying below the average. Did we, when you talk about airport survey again, is this based off of an airport survey done in cities like Abilene, Midland, Wichita Falls, or is this based off of what airport

[4:37:39] survey? For commercial service, and this one was also commercial, we surveyed Abilene Topeka, Crosswell, Lubbock, Amarillo, Rick Husband, Stillwater, Tyler Pounds, Waco, Northwest Arkansas and Kaleen, and for general aviation, which we also address general aviation on these rates, Rosoria County, Dallas Executive, Brady, Meacham Airport in Fort Worth, Mesquite, Midway, Arlington, Lancaster, Addison, and Spinks, okay, overnight aircraft feed, this is an aircraft fee that is applied to commercial aircraft. This is the fee that we have that we established three years ago for storage of the American Airlines ERJs. Current rate is $8 per night. We're proposing $12 per night. The airport server in the commercial airport's average is $35.40, so we're proposing going up $4 per day. So, and we don't have a contract currently with American Airlines or is it on a month-to-month basis? It's on a month-to-month basis. And we're working on American Airlines lights, we're going to be working with an outside consultant to help us with that lease too. So I did not include those commercial rates here. This is just for the overnight storage. Continuing fuel flowage, current rates, it's 8 cents per gallon. proposed an eight and a half cents per gallon based on airport survey we came up with 10 or 10.75 cents so we're recommending going just half a cent up this fuel flow which was increased three years ago to terminal space this is a

[4:39:44] rate for air charter operations staff has been handling above wing meaning boarding, and ticketing of those charter operations. We're proposing a seating capacity of 70 or less on an aircraft, 1,545, the larger aircraft, 71 seats or more, 2,079 per flight. The average trader comparing airports is 3,051, however, some of those airports do handle also the above wing and the below wing, meaning the luggage below the wing and the fueling. We just handle the above wing. So we're recommending those rates that will handle employees, electrical usage, baggage fee, system, etc. This is a new rate too. What didn't exist before? No ma'am rental car. This is a change just to the minimum airport guarantee. 10% of gross sales or 1000 per month is the minimum, proposed rate is 10% of growth sales or 2,000 per month, in the past three years rental companies have been averaging 3,700 on payments and for the past five years they have not reached the minimum airport guarantee. So this is just increasing the minimum, the mag minimum airport guarantee. That would be doubling. Correct. But they've been paying 3,700. Okay. Yes. Okay. Landing fees. We have two rates, one for jet aircraft at 50 cents, one for turbo prop aircraft at 70 cents. We're proposing 75, and again, this is part of that airline fee, so we're going to be looking at these right now. I'm just recommending changing from two rates to one rate at 75 cents average comparative of the other reports is $1.25. And again, this rate has not increased since 2007.

[4:41:48] That's it. Again, the airport board unanimously, they all approve this rate. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Does council, any member of council, like to ask any further questions? Then do I have a motion to accept the new proposed rates and charges as presented? All in support say aye any opposed passes 6-0 oh but we need public comment simple Steve Hampton and I just noticed that some of these were remarkably low and we're paying catch-up they haven't been evaluated in several years. We need to get a company, a city policy where at least every two years all the fees be reevaluated where we can stay on top of it because that's where you run into people getting way upset because they jump up and and I agree 10 years is too long. Help us understand how long it's been. Yes it's been three years since last change and at the last recommendation from city council we changed per city council's direction we're looking at the rates every three years now rather than every five years. So our most contracts on a three-year basis or five-year basis or a ten-year basis because that's part of what you want to look at is what your normal contracts could be for longer but the rates and charges are going to be looked at every three years. So that's written into the contracts. contract terms and rates and charges that doesn't just because the rates go up doesn't mean the contract terms change but that's why I'm asking the question okay

[4:43:49] but the contracts at the time of renegotiation or new increase they will fall with their current rates and charges so the rates and charges at five years out when if it's supposed to change five years it will go with whatever the current rates and charges. So it's up to us, staff, to look on them every three years and make sure that we can bring them up or, or as comparable as possible. What I wanted to make clear was I didn't want you to think that because the, for example, the FBO rate goes up, that our FBOs will be paying a different rate next year. I think you're saying it's not written in their contract that way. So the rate would only go up at the end of their contract when we renegotiate, not on an annual basis. Correct. Except for contracts, which have an escalator built the CPI built in right with that is there any further public comment if not we have a motion to accept as presented in a second all in favor say aye any opposed motion passes six zero item G presentation impossible direction regarding pavement prioritization at San Angel Regional Airport this is going to be a little lengthy hopefully less than 15 minutes but I do want to say that in meeting with the FAA or program manager a few months ago. The FAA indicated that they would only fund or grant funds for two runways on our airport. This study will address this issue and I'd like to present Ms. Molly Waller, senior planner with KSA to go through the presentation. I'll be back. The purpose of the presentation, I'll try to keep it brief. There's a lot of information to communicate, so please feel free to interrupt if you need further clarification. The timing of the meeting that the airport had was perfect in regards to runway prioritization

[4:45:51] of the airport. You currently have three runways. The FAs indicated they will support two runways with financial assistance. So what we did was we evaluate your payment management plan. You had recently had a study at the airport where you went out and essentially inventoryed all of the pavements and you assign a pavement condition index to your runways, your taxways, your aprons. This chart shows, and I'm gonna provide a little bit more detail, you have three runways and they're named according to how they're aligned to the compass. So you've got runway 1836, runway 321, and runway 927. When you look at this graphic, you will see that in 2017, runway 1836 is green, 3-2-1 is yellow and Renui 9-2-7 is red. What that means is that those pavements are in good condition. You need to look at them condition and in poor condition. As you can see from the chart as these pavements get older the colors change and you have to start paying attention to the various pavements. The recommendations for the pavement management plan were that in the short-term and the zero to five years that Renui 1-8-3-6 get a cracked CLSC coat seal coat on a remark essentially apply some conditioner to get that payment to last a little bit longer. The cost for that is a little under a million dollars. We are going to be three to one similar types of projects, again, a little under a million dollars. We are going to be in nine to seven requires, as you remember, it was in the red, draw, the 53. It requires more extensive work, it actually requires a million overlay of approximately three inches of asphalt. So the price for that is the $2.3 million. The FA as we indicated will only support projects on two of your runways, and so now you can see all three of your runways need attention in the zero to five-year time frame. Looking long-term running 1836 does require more extensive rehabilitation in a two-inch millen overlay. So when you're looking at the runways, we need it to decide what two runways are the

[4:47:51] most important to the airport, and this table, I apologize for the text, but we pulled this directly from the FAA advisory circulars table 3.7 of the airport improvement and book. And you get a primary runway and that runway should have, if you, let me step back, you've got different runway classifications, you've got a primary runway, a crosswind runway, a secondary runway, and an additional runway. Every airport gets at least one runway. If that runway provides less than 95 percent wind coverage, meaning that 95 percent of the time the winds are aligned so that the aircraft can take off and land into the wind, you only get one runway. If you have less than 95 percent wind coverage, you get a crosswind runway, and so then you would get two runways if you have less than that 95 percent. The secondary runway comes into play in regards to capacity, Dallas Fort Worth International, because of their number of operations, they need to have of air craft landing at the same time. So then you could justify that parallel runway. The additional runway is never considered eligible for funding and it is simply if a community decides we want to have that runway and we'll pay for it ourselves. You'll be considered an additional runway. So of course our first step was to look at the wind coverage of your runways at the airport. We looked at the past 10 years of wind data. It is hourly data and what we found is this red box is one of your runways, the green box is another, and then you've got nine, two, seven. The red box is that runway that's parallel to your terminal building. Three, two, one, runs at an angle, and then nine, two, seven, again, runs at another angle. And what these boxes indicate are the wind coverage that your current runways provide coverage for, what instances of wind events are covered, and you'll see currently there are some areas where you don't provide enough wind coverage regardless of how many runways you have. So we wanted to look at each of these runways

[4:49:51] independently and together. When you look at all of your runways together, you cover 99.5% of the wind conditions at the airport. So 0.5% of the time aircraft could not right at your airport. That's with all of them. If you look at only runway 1-8-3-6 and 3-2-1, that's this box right here, you'll see that you still provide excellent wind coverage over 95% with all three of your runways. With Renew 1-8-3-6 and 9-2-7 again, your wind coverage is up there. You will see that 1-8-3-6 and 3-2-1 do have slightly less wind coverage. They're only 1-8-3-6 and 9-2-7. So the conclusion that you would draw from this analysis is, Renew 1-8-3-6 and 9-2-7 are the two runways that you should seek a pay funding support for, simply because you have better wind coverage with those two runways. However, there's gonna be an instance your primary runway needs to be closed down for maintenance or if there's a significant accident and you're working under a sole runway environment so we do need to look at the wind coverage of these runways independent from one another. For new 1-8-3-6 which is considered your primary runway it has less than 95% wind coverage so you can justify a secondary runway which then forces us to look at 3-1-9-2-7. The biggest thing that's took out from us from an analysis standpoint is that if running a 186 isn't being used and you only have access to only 321 or runway 927 you're much better off with 321 because if running a 186 is closed for six months you can still accommodate aircraft 93% of the time. If runway 927 was your only other option you're down at 79%. So that's a lot of numbers to throw at you. Are there any questions at this point? I can. This is run new 1836 right here. And so that

[4:52:03] runway captures all of those wind events within that box. No, the 99.5% is what you currently provide with all three runway up with all three. So all of these outlying Xs is 0.5% of the time. So this charts a nice graphic because you can see if runway 927 goes away, essentially this part doesn't have coverage, and this part doesn't have coverage. What is that for some of your shows to increase, so I'm going to be talking about Mike more? I think they were telling me to. Oh, wow. I was too far away from it. Sorry. What does your wind coverage decrease to if you take away 927? I'm going to go back over to this. If you take away 927, that's this box right here. And one thing I want to note is you've got three different classifications of wind. The 10 and a half knot crosswind component, that's what a smaller aircraft, a system 172 and 182. The small guys, that's what they can handle. The 13-notch are getting into the bigger aircraft. The commercial service and the big business jets, they're down here, under none of these scenarios with the big guys really be impacted. Yeah, well, and that's in looking out for the, and we did talk to the airport board, and we had the little guys that were there, and they were present. The thing that most intimidated the little guys was this chart, because if you choose to not get federal funding support for 1-8-3-2-1, and you only get 1-8-3-6 in 9-2-7, when 1-8-3-6 is closed down for that millen overlay, they're not gonna be able to fly very often. versus if 3-2-1 was your secondary runway that's yeah that's so small guys what is

[4:54:14] our average wind out there at Mathis I'm your predominantly it's 1-8-3-6 is your primary wind and I can show you that I believe I had something in here that looked at them in speed I don't have that information handy but you can see from this chart that with 1-8-3-6, your little guys 1-8-3-6 is definitely your primary runway for them also. Other fact is we wanted to take and consider this analysis. The wind is very important because you want your airport to always be open. So the wind, that is the critical component. Other things you want to take into account are your instrument approaches. Currently, St. Angel Beach and my airport has nine published instrument approaches and they're only to run runways 1, 8, 3, 6 and runways 3, 2, 1. Runways 9, 2, 7 does not have any published approaches. Another thing we wanted to look at are what are called hotspots and those are instances where aircraft can meet on your airfield which is never favorable or vehicles and aircraft can meet and currently runways 9, 2, 7 creates two hotspots to its intersections with Taxaway Alpha and Bravo. So after looking at all of that analysis, our recommendation is that runway 1836 be deemed your primary runway, runway 321 be classified as your crosswind runway and runway 927 be classified as your additional runway. So of course what that means is the FBA is only going to fund two runways and so our recommendation is that you seek funding assistance for those two runways. We then looked at alternatives for if you would decide to close runway 927 we got three alternatives to show you. The first one is the closure runway 927, which is right here,

[4:56:14] so that runway goes away. We then would take taxiway hotel, taxiway age, and we would continue it all the way down runway 321 to create more of a parallel runway environment. With the instrument approaches, you have a highly recommend that you have a parallel taxiway to your instrument approach runway. And so this alternative allows you to meet standards a little bit better than you currently do by providing that. It's not a full-length parallel taxiway, but it's most of the runway, so it's definitely a better situation than you currently have. The second alternative, I can advance, there it is, is this was where 927 was, it would take out runway 927 and we would convert taxiway to a hotel in that type of an alignment. would essentially convert your existing runway 927 to a tax away in this situation, or the pavement would be abandoned in the previous scenario. Two advantages to these alternatives that I want to mention before I move on to the third alternative is right now with runway 927 in place, you've got what's called a runway protection zone. And nothing can be built in that area. It has to remain devoid of structures per FAA design standards. Under both of these alternatives, what happens is this area is available for air site development, hangers, and things like that. Your airport's running out of space for large hanger developments. This would be some ideal real estate for someone who wanted to locate to the airport, so that's an advantage that it provides. This also provides advantages beyond that red rectangle in that you would not have the land use restrictions that you currently have for development at the airport. You could build taller structures in some instances because you're not right at the end of the runway. So there's only a use benefit to both of these alternatives that I wanted to mention before.

[4:58:14] I moved on to alternative three. Alternative three is the complete rehabilitation of runway 927. It would stay open as a runway. As I mentioned, it'll require a mill and overlay in the near term and then a full reconstruction in the out years. This would be considered your additional runway, which means it's fully the responsibility of the city of St. Angelo and the airport to fund any improvements. The anticipated short-term cost of this alternative is $2.33 million. As far as funding sources go, with alternative one, and that was the partial parallel right there. With alternative one, 90% of the cost of that runway would be eligible for funding through the airport improvement program The remaining 10% would be the local match. You could use your PFCs for that. Alternative two, which was the conversion of Taxaway Hotel to enemy 927, would also be eligible for 90% funding assistance through the report improvement program with a local match. Your PFCs again are 10%. Alternative three would be the responsibility of the community to pay for the FAA would not provide funding support for Alternative three. There are any questions, or do you need any additional clarification? Lou? I do want to say this was presented to the airport advisory board in November, and they chose alternative one. This was also presented to the tenants. We had a tenant public meeting late November, I forgot to date, but the tenants also chose alternative one. But I didn't want to say that prior to you. I wanted to hear all three alternatives and you come up with your own decision. I certainly like alternative one. I would agree. I like the fact that it allows for further development at the airport, which I think is a major opportunity in something that we need to look for as a city. So, and I also believe that alternative three asking the city to pay for maintaining that

[5:00:19] runway is not something that the city can afford to take on. We need the federal match monies. They become a very integral part of that airport, maintenance, grants, et cetera. So we got to stick with the program of being able to get federal monies to support our airport. And also, thank you, but I wanted to tell you also, since we're an enterprise fund and we live within our means, that means that the rates in charge is that you just approved, I would have to go back and increase them considerably to try to reach 2.33 million. Yes, Bill. Yeah. Ask a question. Um, if we were to successfully pursue another airline, what impact would that, would these alternatives have if we got, you know, another airline in here? None. The two run was that we're recommending run with three, two, one, and one, eight, three, six, we'll give us. That would be adequate. We wouldn't need that third run. We have 99% coverage. Thank you. Are there any other questions from City Council? All right. With that, may I have a motion? There I'd move that we approve alternative one. Is there a second? May we have public comment on this item, please? With no public comment, I will ask for a vote. All in favor of selecting alternative one. Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Motion passes. Alternative one has been selected for support. Thank you. We are now on item H, consider resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with COSDC relating to infrastructure improvements necessary for planning the subdivision of a portion of phase two of the business and industrial park, Rowland.

[5:02:22] Harris and Council members, Roland Pena, Director of Economic Development, I know you've had a long day today, so I'm going to try to make it brief and be succinct as possible. This is a request, you have a resolution requesting a memorandum of understanding. This is really a requirement of the ordinance and it has to do with the recent AEP property that we have sold. Just to give you a little bit of background, in mid-November, the Planning Commission approved our final plat for the AEP tract, and because the developer has to provide the public improvements to the subdivision, this is in the portion of Phase 2, Costa DC in this case, is the developer so typically, I don't think you have a developer that comes before you asking for this request. I think normally you'll have the final plat and some form of security brought to you for your approval. I'm going to show you a map. This is the 52 acres that AEP purchased, and this portion of additional improvement. This is the street. It will require all the water utilities through her. And it also requires the commitment of future paving for this section here, including the full street widths for future extension at the time of planning. So the memorandum of understanding serves as a performance agreement by the developer to fulfill their commitment. Co-City C will consider this resolution typically, will Co-City C will approve a resolution and the MOU and bring it to you for ratification, but so that we could be more efficient and

[5:04:26] move efficiently to try to meet the timeline for AP. We brought it before you today and tomorrow CoCDC will be considering the resolution and the MOU. This will allow for the recording of the plat and also the building permit for AP. We do have in the resolution and in the MOU $750,000 budget allocation only. It is for budget purposes only, and that is because we want to take advantage of betting this other section that we can determine and have economies of scale estimates. So we only have a $750,000 budget allocation to fulfill the requirement of the ordinance to fulfill the commitment that will satisfy the Planning Commission and Development Services. I am glad to answer any questions that you may have. So basically we want to put in the infrastructure to allow AEP to access and use the facility that they have purchased for development. That is correct. And also the commitment that the developer will continue to build out the future streets and the future agreements, correct? Do I have other questions for Rowland I would make a comment This is an unusual circumstance But typically we get the coast of DC board to approve this before it comes to council So I would say that is if there's a way that we can do that Hold that process in place so that we're not doing it reverse Before they get it so I can I can make the motion to approve this as presented today but I'd like to see us figure out a way to give back to that original process. Well taken. Let me say one more before you take a vote. All the departments, it's been a really good experience for us.

[5:06:32] We worked with a lot of our internal departments, and I must say that while we're all interconnected, In essence, you know, the developer is the city who's taking government land and putting it back on the tax rolls in the form of private investment. I have not felt that we've been treated any differently. I mean, then doing business with a current developer or private property owner, we've been well received. Everyone has worked very well together. every one of the department's public utilities, the engineering, our permits, development services, and it's really been a great team effort. I want to put that plug in there because I think this is something that AEP has really put the short timeline for us, but they work very well together and I want to put a good plug in for that. AEP is investing a huge amount of money in this project and we need to be as supportive as we possibly can. And I think everyone who's been a part of this process because they're under timeline, They need to meet their timeline and we need the investment. So do I have a motion to accept this as presented in a second? Public comment? No public comment? We will take a vote. All in favor? Say yes. Aye. Aye. And those that say no, none. So we will accept that as past six zero. The last item today is a presentation by Tina Dersky on the sales tax revenue performance. The new mayor council, Mr. Valenzuela, I would like to end this meeting on a good note. Our December sales tax was up 17.48 percent this December as compared with last December. Our collections for the month were 3.7 percent over that of last year or $48,000 higher.

[5:08:33] We are over budget for revenue year to date by $284,000. Let me ask you a question, because it seems to me the number here is wrong. It says our sister's city's performed as following for the month of December, Abilene up 6.74%, and middling up 10%. But if I look at the numbers back here, it would look more like Midland was up 25, 26, 27, something larger percentage than 10%, because they went from 12 million, six to 16, no wait, sorry, 14. That's their fiscal year to date, so that's not necessarily just this one month. That's correct for the month, but not for the. For the fiscal year to date, yes ma'am. So they're up 10% for the year. So when those, but as our sister cities perform for the month of December. Sorry, pardon me, didn't mean to interrupt you. They are up 10% for the month of December. the difference between the 12 million and the 16 million dollars will be the entire fiscal year, so a three months worth of year to date. And if you recall the last several months, they've been up in the 40s as well. So it's compounded. And we did not receive the information to provide you with this industry segment information because we kind of had our meeting early this month. So we will present for December and January on those comparisons for you for next month. And remind everybody when you say December, what actual month was it? October. October sales. Thank you. Yes, ma'am Any questions from council? If not, then may I have a motion for adjournment. Oh I'm sorry we have to follow up Let me go back here. I was gonna end this thing I'm going to give you a break. OK, so we're not going to give you a break. So follow up and administrative issues. Consider items discussed in executive session, if noted,

[5:10:35] we don't. Consider proving the following board nominations, Animal Service Advisory Commission, Timothy Davenport, Herbst, and SMD1 to the first full term in in January 2020. Send a VRL, SMD3 to the first full term in in January 2020. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Edward Dotson, SMD2, to a second full term in the December 2019 and Christina Woodard SMD six to second full term in the December 2019. So moved. Okay. All in favor? Aye. No opposed, passes six zero. And are there announcements and consideration of future agenda items? Mayor, I have one. Yes, sir. This is a long-term project, because this is gonna be huge. And I realize that Daniel and I have discussed this a little bit. It's it is no secret. There's not a one of us sitting up here that represents our district that doesn't have issues with roads and streets. There's not a one of us that sits up here that doesn't have an issue with drainage and or flooding somewhere in each district up here. I think at some point we we need to start having the conversation as a council. What are we going to do about that? Now this isn't a this isn't a 10-year project, this is likely a 30-35 year, maybe 40 year project. And I realize it's going to change over time, but I'd like to ask for the staff to start looking at those things, bring to us, it may be initially a funding plan or option, and then how we begin that journey over the next 30-40 years. And I would ask for that report by December 31st, 2018. Hopefully that's enough time. Again, this is going to cut across a lot of departments because we're going to be looking at infrastructure under the roads, water sewer. We're going to be looking at the top of the roads. We're going to be looking at drainage and flooding.

[5:12:36] So I realize that's a huge, huge project. But I think we've got to start the conversation. If we just keep doing nothing, nothing's going to change. So I would like to ask for that over the next 12 months. And you'll do have any comment? Only thing, of course, this is going to be changing. And Tommy and I have talked about this, because there's projections that have to be made. I mean, long-term, short-term. We have to consider revenues that will be coming in in the form of self-tax revenues. You will have to project how the economy may or may not adjust over the years. We have to look at property taxes to see. It is going to be a lot of variables. There's a lot of variables that we have to take a look at. I'm just glad you didn't say 2017, did December 31st, 2017. But it's a major challenge, but you can tackle it and see what variables we can develop. And actually meet with me and let you know what our true thoughts are on that as well once we have that. Perfect. Thank you. I would have to be working Christmas then. Yeah, probably. Any other comments from Council before we ask for an adjournment? We'd just like to offer Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all constituents, all the citizens of St. Angelo and hopefully 2018 will be good for everyone. Be safe on the roads if they get that. I'm going to be a very Merry Christmas. We adjourned. Thank you. With that said, all in favor? Aye. Thank you everyone for your patience today.

Transcribed 2026-07-26 with faster-whisper (base.en) · source: youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIkpamI6AA