San Angelo City Council 3-7-17

[0:00:02] It's time to get this meeting started 831 831 This is the seventh day of March in the year of our Lord 2017 and I welcome each and every one of you to our council meeting this morning, and it's we got a good meeting lined up And it's going to be fun from the from the very get-go We're going to start with prayer. I'll ask pastor Phil Todd Paul and Baptist Church to come forward And I would ask you to stand as you are able Good morning, sir. Mike, you do. Let's pray. Lord Jesus, we come to you today, and humbly, Lord, we are asking for your presence to be in this meeting, asking for your help, Lord, as things are considered and decisions to be made. God, we ask for your wisdom and your guidance. Lord, we also ask for your blessings and your protection over our city and all those that protect us and lead us and guide us, Lord. God, we just pray these things in the name of Jesus, amen. Amen. We did a picture. And I supposed to have a bunch of kids from the TLC here today to help me with my pledge, but they're not here, so I'm going to use a Lakeview boy instead. Johnny, yes, but no, sir. Come to the front, please, sir. Good morning, my friend. Stand with me as your able. I made a promise when I had seven council meetings left and I'm now down to five that

[0:02:24] each one of our meetings would be started with music and thus far we've had case harden. Last time we had a bunch of buglers from Angelo State and now this week I have the Langley Boys. I've got Leon Langley who is without a doubt the greatest steel guitar player in the entire world and I've got his son Billy Dan that can play everything else. So your boy's got about ten minutes, three, two songs, whatever you got. Take it away. All right, this one's called hometown blues. I wish I'd never come back home. Things ain't the same since I've been gone. I can't find none of my old friends hanging around. You have nothing to break down like your hometown. I spent some time in New Orleans. I had to live on rice and beans. I've been to Texas, Lord, with the hot sun beating down. Yeah, but nothing brings you down like your hometown. Oh, miss where the heart is. At least that's what they all say. My heart's in a thousand pieces scattered along the way. Oh, don't you miss me when I'm gone. I don't mind traveling alone.

[0:04:24] You are the sweetest thing, Lord, that I've ever found. Yup, nothing brings you down like your own town Bigger, the heart is least that's what they all say My heart's in a thousand pieces scattered along the way Oh, don't you miss me when I'm gone I don't mind traveling alone You are the sweetest thing that I've ever found You have nothing brings you down like your old town, and nothing brings you down like your old town. Alright we got the cotton conference going on next door and agriculture means a lot to me and my family. We are a long line of cotton farmers and cotton jinners and I also named my son cotton as well.

[0:06:26] So this was going out for him. So when I was a little bitty, baby, my mama would rock me in the cradle, and oh, cotton and fields back home. It was down in Louisiana, just about a mile from Texarkana. Oh, cotton and fields back home. Oh, get rotten. We can't think very much cotton in the mold, cotton feels back home It might sound a little funny, we didn't make all that much money In the mold, cotton feels back home Baby, my mama would rock me in the mold, cotton feels back home From Texas, Arcana In the mold, cotton feels back home And my mama would rock me, and cotton feels back home

[0:08:41] Just about a mile from Texas, Arcana In the mold, cotton feels back home Hey Cal, we're going to do a little Murrow Haggard here We got time? Yes, we got time for one more? We always get time for the market That's what I thought. That's what I thought. Ain't no same now too long, years can't stand here the same old song. I don't leave the highway long enough all down in the mud, rambling fever in my blood, long ago. My first hurt that lonesome was so blown, someone told you ever gave down. Hampshire told you wrong You had ramble fever all along And it can't be measured by degree This time's a light to bed down on sofa

[0:11:08] But some pretty lady rubbed my back In the early morning's drinking coffee Walking by today, I'll come in back I don't let no woman time me down Never be too old to get around Just rammin' fever in my soul And I'm rammin' fever in my soul And I'm rammin' fever in my soul And I'm rammin' fever in my soul I think we need an ordinance that every meeting in San Angelo all with musicians. Appreciate you guys very much. Thank you so very much. And next meeting

[0:13:11] we've got Manny Campos. He'll be here with his keyboard and that's going to be fun. He's well. How about running on time, Brian? Next group I want to bring up is some Lake D Basketball players. You guys start coming to the front up here. Kind of lying up behind me. I didn't bring these Lake D Boys in because they won District. I didn't bring these Lake D Boys in because they won state. I brought these Lake Dee Boys in because they have done something that has not been done since 1999 and they did make the playoffs. We're in a tough district out in Lake Dee. We are just barely in our district and we're playing these teams that are on the other side of the thing. They're just barely in their district but we need to go down and the rest of them need to go up. And these kids have played a tremendous season this year and I'm extremely proud of them. The City Council of the City of San Angelo hereby recognizes and applauds the Lakeview High School Chiefs Boys Basketball Team for their first playoff appearance since 1999. Among their many other accomplishments this season along with their dedication to embody the very best of what it means to bear the title, Student Athlete. I'd like for everyone to give a round of applause to the Lakeview Boys Basketball for making the playoffs. Thank you, Mayor. As you said, we are, these boys played in a very tough district. We're very proud of their accomplishment this year. They finished the season with the 2063 points, 100th in the nation in steals, and for about 75% of the season, we're 84th in the nation

[0:15:14] in field goals. It's all due to these young men, and first up like to introduce Coach Stratton He's my assistant, and our defensive guru, senior Jonathan Dominguez, senior Timothy O'Wetto, junior Isaiah English, senior Corbin Kiel, senior Ryan Hart, senior Michael Gordon, senior Daniel Hernandez, senior Adrian De La Rosa, junior to be Dylan Hart, who will be on Law and Mercy next year, and then freshman Johnny Espinosa. So you figure, you know, with that many seniors, what they did, they did exactly what they should have done and that is get in to the playoffs and make their mark. So we thank you.

[0:17:20] Ryan, where's your entourage? Good deal. Good morning, gentlemen. Hey, y'all. We went to an awards banquet last week when, man, there was all sorts of wonderful prizes passed out. And our city got a bunch of them. Let me read this. The City Public Information Office does two things extraordinarily well in forming the public and winning awards. That was proven yet again last month when the office and the City Diographer Brian Groves won five American advertising awards including two gold awards and a pair of judges commendations. Public Information claimed the top awards in the category of film, video and sound for I do this for you, Officer Stephen Guerrero, Guevada, and try something new, San Angelo Parks. The video featured Guevada captures his motivation to join the San Angelo convinced father that it was shot and produced by city videographer Brian Groves with assistance from Intern Ethan Langford and Angelo State University videographer Brandon Whitford. The Parks video is an upbeat montage of offerings and parks and recreation from water pinching at the boss to kayaking on the Conch Hill River to pick a ball near Love Municipal Pooh, Grove's shot and produced the spot. The two videos will advance to compete in the American Advertising Federation's regional competition. Another Grove's video on preventing wildfires titled, Did Your Butte Start This Fire won a civil reward. Grove's was also honored during the dinner at the AAF's local board member of the year. Therefore, I, Duane Morrison, mayor of the city of San Angelo, on behalf of the city council, do hereby recognize and and applaud city videographer Brian Groves in the public information office, or their achievements in positive determination to make a difference in our community. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you.

[0:19:20] I like to say that I go to work every single day and I love what I do and I have a blast doing it. And it's a pleasure to get to work with Brandon and Ethan on things and we were filming last night on something new that is really exciting And it's just great to be able to surround yourself with talented people. And these videos are never just me or just Anthony. They're a collective of many people. And we love getting to produce high quality video content for St. Angelo. And I just appreciate these guys a lot for their help. Thank you. Appreciate you. Blanca Bracio, Blanca Bracino, are you here? Step forward, please, man. And by the way, the Trinity Lutheran children that was going to say the pledge did make it, but they made it during the second song. So, but they did make it. We should have waited another two minutes. Yeah, yeah. Amazingly, Blanca Bracino has, has for 34 years known only one employer, and that is the city of San Angelo. And only one job, assisting code compliance officers and the citizens that they serve. In fact, it's the only job she's ever known. Blanca joined the city on October 5, 1982 as a secretary in what was then the Environmental Control Operation in the Public Works Department. She assisted four code enforcement officers along with light and heavy equipment operators and certified pesticide and herbicide operators. In 1990, Environmental Control evolved into code enforcement working under the umbrella of the San Angelo Tom Green County Health Department. Blanca continued serving as a secretary for the code enforcement officers along with registered sanitarians and the county's septic tank

[0:21:21] inspectors. Code enforcement moved again in 2006 to the water billing and collections where Blanca served as an administrative assistant to six code compliance officers. When code compliance shift to the neighborhood and family services department, she moved to serving as Director Bob Solis' right hand through her retirement on February the 28th of 2017. Throughout her three plus decades of service to our community Blanca has unfailingly been a person of Good cheer, a patient listener, and an emphatic service. She has gone only one week, and her colleagues already miss her. Therefore, I, Dwayne Morrison, mayor of the city of San Angelo on behalf of the city council, proudly recognize and applaud Blanca Bracino for her achievement and positive determination to make a difference in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. In behalf of my citizens, first of all, They're the ones that brought me where I'm at now. My staffs that I've had in the years past, they've all been wonderful. They made me love my job. And for what I do, I help and I've learned and studied all my city ordinances so I can answer questions to my citizens out there that needed to know and I know my code officers were always busy. So, but first of all, those were wonderful, 34 years And I'm going to miss them, but they'll always be in my heart, along with my directors, city managers, assistants and managers. They've always been there for me. Thank you, everyone. And hope I can always just have you in my heart. Thank you.

[0:23:28] Ready to you, Mary, come forward, please. Good morning. The Texas-Hungrid niche, Steve, is a collaborative effort, both locally and statewide, whose goal is to end hunger in Texas through policy, Education, research, grassroots organizing, and community development. St. Angelo is one of eight Texas cities selected to have a Texas Hunger Initiative regional office to encourage the expansion of child nutrition programs such as alternative breakfast models after school meals and summer meals. Additionally, THI is working with communities across Texas to achieve the goal of hunger-free communities by collaborating with businesses, non-profits, churches, schools, and government entities. The Kids Free Summer Meal Program was established in 2010 and continues to meet the needs of relieving hunger through the summer months of July and August, but calls more than one in four families with children in Tom Green County have times when there is not enough money to buy food that's 5,400 households in the city of San Angelo. The Tom Green County Hunger Initiative provides education on topics that affect the ability are the inability of residents to be food secure, including health and wellness, community organizing, hunger outreach and overcoming hunger barriers. The Texas Hunger Initiative San Angelo Regional Office, along with co-sponsors, the Lord W. Bush Institute for Women's Health, and additional sponsors Sonora Bank, Shannon Medical Center Region 15 Education Service Center and HEB have organized the West Texas Hunger Summit, and I, Duane Morris and the Mayor of the City of San Angelo, Texas on behalf of the City Council. Here by Proclaim March 23, 2017, as the fourth annual West Texas Hunger Summit, as a way of educating the citizens about the way that we can work together to make our region food secure and address this year's

[0:25:29] topic, hunger as a health issue. And there is yours, and here's the microphone. I would like to invite all of you to attend the West Texas Hunger Summit. This is our fourth annual summit and we have people come from all around our region. Our region covers 23 counties and we had 19 different communities represented last year. So we certainly want to have people from San Angelo be here as well and be able to sit down and talk about the issue of hunger. And particularly this year, as hunger is a health issue, being food insecure affects the health of all life stages from children through senior adults. And we want to explore that. Jeremy Everett, who is our executive director for the Texas Hunger Initiative in our Waco office, will be here. He has been serving on the National Commission on Hunger. And they have now made some recommendations. and he's going to share those with us. And then we have Dr. Debra Reed from Texas Tech, as a nutrition professor. We'll talk about how food insecurity does affect different life stages. Then we'll have Alia Moreno from the Cal Farley's Boys Ranch. Well, she is an author living intentionally as the book she's written and all about working with people that are experiencing poverty. Then we'll have a wonderful best practices panel. We want to hear about the need, then we want to hear about some ideas that we could do to implement in our own community that would help us alleviate this hunger problem and the food insecurity. So we'll be talking about that in several different groups. We'll be coming for that. Then we'll have Dr. Baker Harrell at the end. He was our keynote a couple of years ago, and he is a master at leading a directed brainstorming. So we want to, at the end of the day, have us all have an idea of what we could actually go out and do to alleviate hunger in our own

[0:27:33] communities. So we hope you will all attend. It's at the Education Service Center, March 23rd, and it's $10, but that does include your lunch. And we want to have a wonderful representation from our own community. Thank you very much. It is now the time of our agenda where we take public comment in the city of San Angelo that wishes to it. They usually turn my mic off and they turn my mic off. It is now time in our public in our agenda where we take comments from the public, anything that you have to say that you want to come before the City Council and address. I'll give you about three minutes. I'll need you to speak your name and then I'll allow you to speak. Let me read the legacies on this and then I'll have you make a line right here at the front. Items or issues that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time. Citizens should speak from the podium began by stating their name and limited remarks to about three minutes. Council members may request that a discussed item be placed on the future agenda. The Council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items. The line forms right here at the front. Good morning. Good morning. First of all, I'm Eric Aguiler. I'm one of the local physicians at Shannon. I appreciate

[0:29:36] your letting us talk and I also understand you guys have a very difficult job. I've been in your position. I'm here to support the funding of the CIP proposed projects on River Valley and Foster Road due to the flooding issues. I've been at this for seven years. I've been through five floods. These are not epic rains. These were normal rains for West Texas and we flooded River Valley Lane neighborhood and Foster Road has been impassable for more than one hour on On three occasions That's Impossible to even high-rise pickup trucks meaning your emergency vehicles would not be able to get into foster road Fortunately these all happen in the middle of the night Unfortunately, I was on call and had to cross that So I've met with city engineers SKG engineering private engineers the developers, multiple attorneys, TCEQ. The fire marshal has also been out after these floods. Got lots of pats on the back, lots of promises for plans and nothing done in particularly the last three years. But I finally believe we have a plan to get this done or city engineers have been working diligently on this and it really put the pedal to the metal and we have a chance to get this fixed for both the communities, but their farms in River Valley Lane. This is a problem that was created by the developers, it was unintentional, I don't think it was malicious, but it was also a city allowed development, therefore they both bear responsibility. This is a problem that threatens six homes. We've had episodes where the water was up to weep holes on six homes, multiple flooded barns, destroyed concrete and driveways very costly, it's no fun on an Easter Sunday to be digging three feet down to fix water pipes that are broken.

[0:31:36] We have 140 homes with single access on Foster Road that can be cut off from emergency services, not to mention the inconvenience. I've been told we've had multiple plans in the past over the last five years. A plan is meaningless unless there's action involved. It's time to get these, the action initiated. The ultimate responsibility of the city council is to support the welfare, protect the property and the safety of the citizens of this fine city. To continue to allow unfettered development in an irresponsible fashion without the supporting infrastructure in place, not a plan for it, but in place, is irresponsible, dangerous, and ultimately could it cost the city a lot more than what it would be to fix it in the first place. Not just from a liability perspective, but directly impacts our safety. Please fund the River Valley and Foster Road projects. Thank you very much. Good photo. Oh yeah, my name is Tom Hudgens. I represent Butler Farms Homeowners Association. And if they would stand up, please, I know there's a large contingent of them here. I'm going to share what Eric said. Mr. Mayor, council members, I hope you all are well. We've been fighting this for some four or five years that I've been out there. There have been at least four incidences where it is impassable. The single entrance way in and out of Butler Farms. There's some 140 homes, 500 residents there that have the inability to get in and out to access emergency services. It's crucial that we fix this. I think the city has done a good job and understands there's a problem there. I think we need to push that further there. Again, citizens out here, there are healthcare workers,

[0:33:36] there are students, there are retired people that need access to basic services. It's crucial for our city, our livelihood. So I would support any kind of funding mechanisms that help in this capital improvements plan, specifically regarding River Valley Estates and the Butler Farms flooding area. And I'll be happy to take any questions or allow Butler Farms people to continue to come up. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Sarah. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Billy Dewitt. And my comment comes in the form of a huge thank you to the City Council. On behalf of my husband and I, we own a property that we submitted an application to the Tears Program. And if you can remember when Sean Lewis was here, that's when we first started that. So that's been a number of years ago. We resubmitted last year, we were approved, and the work is almost complete. And it's a wonderful program. That tears program is a wonderful program for San Angelo, for citizens to have an opportunity to refurbish their properties and improve and enhance neighborhood so thank you Mr. Mayor and City Council for approving that and if you hadn't been by the corner of third and Martin Luther King to see what some of the tears money is doing please drive by I guarantee it's a huge improvement on that corner so thank you and that's that's the the old the building that had good easy on the good to the tummy and easy on the money the chicken place I guess now Now, I must have been in Cincinnati working when it was that, but the two-story red brick building. It used to have on the edge somebody's chicken.

[0:35:37] Honeyfry chicken, I think. Easy on the money and good for the time. Tommy, I didn't know that mayor until we have a guy looking at giving us an estimate for some awnings to go over the doors and the windows. And he said, I know that place. He said, I'll drive by that place every day. He said, they used to have that sign that it's good for the tummy and easy on the money or whatever you said. I wasn't. I'll be back. Put it on, put it back on that building. Thank you very much, man. Thank you. We do appreciate it. Good morning. I'm Brenda Gunter. I am here in support of a couple of issues with the capital improvement program. I attended two of those in the past month and up until then was not aware of the tremendous amount of flooding that goes on in our city. And since we are a city that constantly prays for rain, we need rain. I find it really difficult to listen to homeowners talk about their fear of rain when we need it so much in this city. So I know there's more than one flooding issue that exists in this city, but I sure hope our homeowners don't have to constantly panic when we forecast rain. I ask for your support in helping resolve these flooding issues, and Foster Road seems to be a major issue at this point in time. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Good morning. My name is Stephanie Bass, and I live in Butler Farms, and I support the CIP for Foster Road and River Valley Link. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, sir. Good morning. My name is Jimmy Bass, and I support the Foster Road and River Valley, and I ask that you'll put that and consider fixing our issue. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And good morning, Ms. Nellan.

[0:37:37] Now I am asking, and I'm representing that response in this event, or desperately asking me to put it on the CFC plan. Actually, we really want it number one. So thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Good morning. My name is Betsy Garrett. I'm a resident of Butler Farms, and I would think you guys get the picture. You're going to hear the same thing a lot for the next few minutes, that I hope that you would consider fixing the problem at Butler Farms in River Valley. Thank you, ma'am. Are you here for Butler Farms, ma'am? I am. My name is Amy Ocker. I live on Whitney Street in Butler Farms. And I support the project as well for the CIP. Our daughter was at our house here about a year, a year and a half ago during a major, one of our major rains that we had, which was a blessing. And we certainly appreciate any rains that we get. But she was needing to leave to go to work when it was kind of a sudden thunderstorm that we got, and she was not able to get out. So she was stuck at our house for a good while until she was able to leave, because of Foster Road being flooded. So I definitely support that. And of course, that's not even the most important thing. The most important thing is because of the, you know, urgency of emergency vehicles and so forth you know that was a minor thing was for her to be able to get out but anytime that you can't get in and out of your home or emergency vehicles can't get in and out of your home or you can't get to the hospital or anything like that it's a very big urgent issue so I just wanted to express my opinion about that thank you thank you good morning sir are you I'm John Bailey. We also live in Butler Farms. We have four little boys under the age of 11 and my wife said I had to come talk. I can relate to that. I understand that well. Oh you know when you have a baby and there's these potential issues

[0:39:40] in addition to the stagnating water I know my wife was pregnant through last summer with the you know the Zika talk and everything. I think that's another issue and I'm a lawyer here in town and I think it's most of the time a lot cheaper to fix it on the front end than the back end when you're doing liability so thank you all very much. Thank you sir. Yes sir. Ross Harper, I also live in Butler Farm so I'm a physician at Shannon Hospital, I just want to reiterate what everybody in our neighborhood said here and just show my support for y'all fixing the fosterhood. Thank you doctor. Yes ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Jennifer Calvary and I bought a lot in Butler Farm three years ago. My husband and I are building a house there now. I'm very concerned because of the medical aspect of this flooding. He has muscular dystrophy, we have the handicapped van, it's very low, and sometimes on occasion we need to get to the ER very quickly and we have the best paramedics in the world, but sometimes it's just easier for him to stay in his wheelchair and get there. So I would ask you to please at least quickly pick up the Butler Farms just for a safety issue for all of us out there. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Diana Stanley. I live in Butler Farms. And I just want to add my concern, not only for the emergency access, but for the stagnant water problem and the Zika virus concerns. Thank you ma'am. Good morning ma'am. Good morning. I'm Mary Kay Cockrell, my husband. and I and our 16-year-old daughter live in Butler Farms. And one of the things that hasn't really been mentioned is the being the potholes is the misalignment and the problem with losing control of your vehicle because when they're underwater, you don't see them till you hit them. And if I have a 16-year-old driving through there, I concern about her safety, no matter how slow she may go. She also has had brain surgery. And so again, we are concerned about the safety

[0:41:43] of going in and out of there in a medical emergency. So with that, please consider the repairs. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Well, good morning to you. I wish I live on River Valley Lane, and what Dr. Uighur indicated, certainly, you could have gotten your rowboat out in road when we have the nice rain that helped our lakes. Drainage is a huge problem. There needs to be a pathway to get that water to the river. It's trying to find its way there, but there's no pathway. And yes, there is standing water. It is a concern for, especially some are coming up, mosquitoes, and my husband and I have joked we need to stock the pond so we can go fish in there. Standing water is a problem, and it will be a health hazard. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Bartas. Good morning, sir. Andrew Fauf, I'm on Ray Street. I have a three and four year old, so it's a concern for all of us. here to support it as well. Thank you buddy. Come on up John-Con. You're gonna have to deal with that to introduce yourself. John-Con, I live in Butler Farms. I appreciate your time. My wife and I moved to Butler Farms two years ago from a ranch and by golly the road and the butler is worse than the ranch road. We need some help and I've I've visited with the mayor about it, and I know we pay a lot of stormwater drainage, use of commercial buildings, and just appreciate anything y'all could do to help us. Thank you. Thank you, John. Good morning, sir. I name is Randall Severns. I've lived in Butter Farms for 15 years, and up until the past few years, we haven't had that flood problem, so whatever is causing it,

[0:43:45] needs to be corrected and appreciate what y'all have done at this point. And I support everything that's been said this morning. You've probably heard more than once. Thank you, sir. Well, I was a mayor in 13, and I was cussed because it didn't rain. And then on Memorial Day, a 14, it rained. And I started getting calls cussed because it's raining. So we know that there's a problem there. And this is the way to get things done. I appreciate you all coming in today. I appreciate you making your wishes known. And we are working on capital improvements. I appreciate very much your comments and coming to the meeting to state them. Anything else? If anybody else wants to talk, you're almost to the end of your chances. So if you've got anything else you want to approach the council about, this is the opportunity. Come ahead, sir. Anything, if it's not on the agenda, if it's on the agenda, you're gonna have to wait until the time. But if it's not on the agenda, you can approach us right now. My name is Richard Grievous. I've lived here all my life. I'm 60 years old. I own a Grievous and some pain and body repair. And right now, at the time, they're trying to install a tower in back of my agenda. That's on the agenda. Right. You're going to have to wait until we come to it. OK. And I've been in business there now. If you're talking about the tower, you're going to have to wait until we get to the tower on the agenda. Oh, okay. If it's on the agenda, we can only talk about it at the time of the agenda. Okay, so I stop. So you stop. Okay. Thank you, Rivas. Anyone else care to approach before I call the end of this? I'm going to call an end then to the public comment portion of our agenda. And we thank you very much for your public comment. It is now time to take care

[0:45:46] of our consent agenda. This is the time that I allow our council members if they have any announcements they want to make, if they have any questions they want to ask, and also if there is anything on the consent agenda that our council members wish to pull from the consent and place on the regular, this is the opportunity. Ms. Farmer is not with us today, so I will start with Lane Carter. I also want to say thank you for everybody from Butler in the River Valley Estates from coming in and voicing their opinions on support for the improvements for the drainage. I would also like to pull item I and Jay. What's your numbers? I and Jay. I have no comments and I've been to pull. Thank you ma'am. Harry. I like to pull item C. I like to make another comment. Several emails over the last week about about homeless people under the bridge and what impact that has on the city. So I'd like to address that in future council item. Marty? Uh, no. I'm gonna pull and I have no comment. All right, well I have nothing to pull and I have no comments either. So I'm gonna ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda. This will be items A, B, D, E, F, G, H, G-H-N-K. May I have a motion please? So moved. Marty may I have a second? Second. Do I have a second from Lucy? Do I have any questions on the council about any of the items that we are approving? Do I have any public comment on these items of the consent agenda that I listed? If I have none, I will call for the motion. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed Okay, drop the 5-0 on that one, Brian.

[0:47:47] I remember seeing you consider approving a 40-year lake, lot, residential lease with the following tenant. This will be Cindy Priest, 6686, Knickerbock Road, lot 102, block six, section one. Great, you show it, group, shady point, Lake Nazworthy Edition, what are your questions, Harry? Well, really, Council and the public really know that I'm really not a big fan of the city being in property management business to begin with. But this lease is already out there to 2047. Cindy has answered my questions, but publicly I'd like for her to talk about that. Why are we enacting another release, another 40-year lease? Cindy? Thank you. The tenants under Article 9.03 of the Lake Nazworthy Twin Buttes section of the Code of Ordinances, the tenant does have the option to request a new lease. That new lease can be up to 40 years. The current tenant does need the 40-year lease so that they can obtain financing. So the ordinance does provide that they are allowed to request the 40-year lease. I'm gonna make another comment before I move to approve this. And that is simply, I would like to see if there's a way that this council and the senior staff can find a way that we can incentivize these leaseholders to make sure that they are, allow them to go ahead and purchase the property. I mean, I don't wanna, I don't wanna, the point I wanna try to make, I guess is, is I wanna make sure that it's easier for them to purchase the property than it is to lease from the city. I'll move to approve. Second. Do we have a second? Do we have a motion to approve? Any other questions, Council? Only question I have. Yes, is it necessary for the financing for a 40 year or can you go at a lower term? The tenant did request the 40 years.

[0:49:47] My understanding is the property is up for sale. The current tenant has been with the city for 10 years. She's selling the improvements and the purchaser of the improvements. Their lender is the one that's requesting the additional requesting the 40-year lease. I will tell you that we obtained an appraisal of the property. So everyone is aware of the appraised value and the opportunity to purchase the property. There, yeah, yes sir. Cindy, this lease at some point goes to market rates. Does it not? Correct, it actually goes to market rate July of 2017. So we did obtain the appraisal so we can also determine what the 2017 lease rate will be. Okay, Councilman Thomas talked about incentives to purchase rather than continue to lease, and that's one of the things that's in place is when those lease amounts bump up, and if Council feels like we need to do more than that, we can certainly look at it. No, we've made a lot of progress on the last 18 months, two years, but I certainly would like to see us continue to move that direction expedited if we can. I'd like to get these properties on the tax rolls to help with some of these projects the city has. Do I have a motion? I do have a second to approve this. Are there any other questions from Council? Do I have any public comment on this item before we vote? We'll call for vote all in favor of please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Drop the five O on that one, Mr. Brian. Item number I is the second reading for an ordinance amending Appendix A fee schedule, article 89.00, planning and related fees by repealing in its entirety section 89.009 fees for sign placement or erection,

[0:51:47] amending section 89.007, miscellaneous planning fees, to provide for adjustment of certain fees, and addition to fees for additional planning services, providing source, severability, and an effective date. What are your questions, Mr. Lane? The more you can go over exactly what this is for the public, but I just wanted to make it aware that the reason I voted against it last time was because I didn't really feel it was the right time to increase our fees to our citizens because of down to economy. What we presented last meeting was five fees from the Planning Division for increase at this time. The first is a request for easement release, the current fee is $300, we're proposing to go to $500 because we've estimated the cost to provide that service at $650. The request for street name change, the current fee is $250 plus the cost of signage. We're proposing a fee of $500 plus the cost of signage because that estimated cost of service is in excess of $600. The application for a certificate of appropriateness within a historic overlay, the current fee fee is $100, the proposed fee is $350, and the estimated cost of service is also $350. The application for disannexation, we currently don't have a fee for that. We're proposing a fee of $600 because the cost of service is $790, and then newspaper advertisements which is simply a pass-through of the expense we incur at the standard times for those items which require public notice. We currently charge a fee of $0. We would propose implementing a fee of $150 because our expenses for that can reach up to $200. We also take into account a fee review survey of peers as well as the financial impact for each of these items. So for planning, there's just five items before you. Questions Council? Well, I'll piggyback on what Lane's doing. The cost of living goes up about 2% or 3% per year, and that's what it's been going.

[0:53:48] And when the city of San Angelo comes in and ask for a 500 or 1,000% increase on what they're charging, I too think it's out of line. If you'd come with us with a 10 or a 15% increase, I could accept it. But when you go from $200 to $500, that's too much. Our citizens cannot absorb it, and they shouldn't, Lucy. Morgan, if we don't raise these fees, who pays for it? Our citizens, what's happening right now is that the general tax dollars are supporting this service. And we're trying to parlay those into the specific customers, developers, commercial, that are driving the provision of these services, so that it's not at the cost of the specific general populace, but into the person creating the work, so to speak. The user fee. Yes, sir. But it's a user fee that's excessive. I mean, if you go by gas this morning, it's $2, and you go back to night and it's $6, that's excessive. It's too much. And if a business does that, they're out of business. Say it, close themselves down. No one but the city and the bureaucracy can change prices like this. And it's unfair to our citizens. Mayor, the issue is with the business, if they're not charging an amount necessary to cover that service, they'll go out of business as well. And that's something that we're trying to make sure that we address at this point, that we're not subsidizing these user fees with citizens that are out of the general fund. And that's what we're trying to make these adjustments at this point. and pay taxes too, people pay taxes, they pay up to a tremendous amount of property taxes, that it's supposed to provide for some of the city services. I just think it's excessive, and I don't mind a gentle increase in fees, but I do mind these increases that double and triple. I do want to remind everyone that the amounts that we're talking about, these are based on actual costs to provide these services. It's not just something that we throughout there, as a matter of fact, some of these are actually even below the cost to provide those services as Morgan just mentioned a while ago, I'm sorry.

[0:55:50] I'll piggyback on what Marty said and what Daniel's talking about is this, if we are expecting the citizens through their property tax to pick up all of these fees and they're not covering the cost, somebody's gotta pick that cost up and it should be the people that are requesting these types of services to do that and not the individual citizen. I'll completely agree that it's not completely on the taxpayer to provide for everyone that are using those fees, but I'll agree with the mayor that at this rate of increase, it's just too excessive. If we create a gradual increase, I could maybe agree with it. I mean, it's Lucy. I am with Marty and Harry on, somebody needs to pay it, so if you're gonna use the fees, I believe that we didn't have to pay it, and we don't need to have it coming out of another fund when we're short on it. So you take the user fee, and you don't raise a user fee on what a person's gonna actually pay to play, and you tell the people on Riverview that we've gotta take the money that we're gonna take toward fixing the street and use it for the increased user fee. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that fees ought to be reasonable. And if your property tax is went up 1,000 percent, you would say that is an excessive amount to go up. And that's the same thing. We can do that because we are a bureaucracy and we can adjust these fees. I'm just saying that needs to be a gradual limit to raise these fees instead of doubling or tripling them because that is not good for our economy. And the economy is down right now and our people are down. What was that 5,400 people in our city or do not even know where they're going to get their next meal? I mean, this is something that is serious.

[0:57:50] And when you start tripling fees on developers, it's hurting every one of us. 10, 15%, I can live with, but I can't live with these big high increases. Do I have public comment on this item? Come ahead, Brenda. I am in total support of Lane and Duane's comments regarding fees. No business can stay in business if you increase your prices by these kinds of amounts. Gradual is generally what happens in all business practices. You can't start doubling, tripling these fees and expect a business owner to survive. When we talk about these fees and the users, remember they are business owners. And business owners can all of a sudden start charging devil and triple for their products or services because the city changes the cost of these fees. Everything that starts at the top comes down line. Somebody's got to pay for it and the end result is the consumer pays for it and the consumer pays for it. They have less money to spend in this city and we need the sales tax revenue. If you take away profitability from a business, you take away money from people who run businesses and are spenders in this city, you can't hurt the businesses that way. It has to be a gradual increase. And you have to say, if these are the actual costs for these fees, why haven't we addressed it before we needed to double and triple the fees? Why hasn't there been a gradual increase of these fees along a period of years? While the sudden in 2017, is it this large of an increase? Thank you, Brendan. It's Brendan. Any other comments? You, Hampton, I commented last time on this and I would just like to repeat, because there's an important part that's being forgotten

[0:59:52] are left out so far, and that is that if you do raise these, you're gonna hold down the taxes for the general fund, property taxes. And I know there's a transition situation in doing that, so you can't have both. You can't have high fees and high taxes. And we continue to still be rated very highly. And we were always comparing ourselves to our sister cities. Are we going to come back down to their level on taxes? So there's a give and a take. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. A rookie template and developer, prime example of this, There's an annexation before y'all this morning. At my last annexation, the fee was zero. I submitted a letter to the mayor asking for annexation and then it followed the procedure. This year, the fee for annexation was $1,000. It went up 1,000%. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. I think you made the point very well. Morgan, would you pull up that slide that talks about the financial impact for the city? This is not a big deal. There's not a lot of these requests that are out there. I'm sorry. I don't have the PowerPoint since this was on consent agenda, but it's less than $7,000. The 4,500 of that would be just for the newspaper pass through, meaning that it's an increase in revenue, but it's also an increase in expense. So there's very little financial impact to the general fund. There are very few users that this impacts. And one option today would be if you want to give this direction for small incremental raises and let staff go back and rework it and bring it back. That's an option as well. Personally I'd like to

[1:01:55] move to approve as presented. You have a motion on the floor. It has been made and it has been seconded. Do I have any of the public comment? I think Brian has a comment is just going to make sure everyone's aware that it takes four to enact an ordinance so even if this was to pass three to two which is what I'm guessing it's going to it would it would fail the ordinance would fail so if you want to wait till you have a full counsel on that you know well do we have already got a motion in the second on the floor we don't have to deal with it right we'll deal with it and we'll then we'll deal with the results any other come in any other questions from council. I'm going to call for the vote. All in favor of approving this as presented please say aye. All in all opposed say nay nay. So it's a 3-2 it did not pass. Item number j is a second reading for an ordinance amending Appendix A fee schedule article a 2-0-0-0 building and construction related fees. Section a 2-0-0-1 general provisions. Restating subpart C, building valuations and repealing subpart D, inspections and permits in the ETJ, amending section A2-002, building permit fees, restating subpart ethics, but I did plan review fees, and adding subpart G, intermodal container placement fees, amending section A2-004, miscellaneous permit fees, by restating subpart D, 30-day part, why didn't you find a short one to read? I thought of that after I said it. By adding subpart e, public e, no, 30 day partial or temporary occupancy permit, amending section A9 2009 signed permit fees by adding subpart e, public event banners fee, amending section A20 general fees by adding subpart g fee for appeals from building officials to

[1:03:59] to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, amending section A-2-0-1-2 permit extensions by restating said section to provide for permit renewals repealing section A-2-0-1-3 licensing electrical. Did everybody get that? Do I need to go through it again? Lane, but you said it so well. It goes along the same lines as item J, although I did agree with getting rid of the licensing for the electrical portion, but in understanding that, even though if it does not pass those still will not, they will be null and voids that correct. I think John James had said that at one point, that we, since it's implied at the state level, we will not be passing it down at the city level. Those are my thoughts. And I agree with the Ole Miss. I think the timing is wrong. I do not like these double and triple fees. I think they ought to be 10, 20%, so that the people can absorb them. And I will vote against it, just like the last one. Well, based on Brian's comment, I'd say that we probably should weigh down this particular agenda item until next meeting. I just got to comment, if a business doesn't know their costs and if they don't pass their cost through then they don't stay in business. You can talk about you can't increase to a hundred percent or a thousand percent but if you don't know your cost you won't stay in business and and I guess that's all I got to say about that and I'll eat my Snickers bar. And I agree but those costs ought to be something that people can know what's going to happen and when you go from zero to a thousand dollars like Rocky was talking about that's not something businesses can plan for. We have we have a responsibility as a citizen to keep these fees

[1:06:00] at a normal level so that people can absorb them. To clarify the permits fees before you today are each under a hundred dollars and so it's it is simply to cover across the service and they're not tremendous percent increase in fees. The highest fee I think is $75. I need need a motion to table this move second any other questions from council public comments motion has been made do we table this bring it back for another time all in favor please say I oppose nay put a 5-0 on that one Brian and we are finally through with the consent agenda 938 we got time to do a couple of before we break for a minute, don't we? Anybody? Anybody need break? Regular agenda item number A is the first reading and public hearing for an ordinance amending the Plan Development PD-1504 zoning district to expand the PD boundary for Shannon Medical Center for four additional properties, changing from general commercial heavy commercial CGCH to Plan Development PD-1504, and to allow for a master sign plan generally located north of Tewig Avenue, west of Main Street, south of 2nd Street, east of Chadburn Street, John James. Would you take it over, sir? Thank you. John James, Director of Planning and Development Services. This, as you can see on the map there, is basically the overall campus for Shannon Medical Center. This is simply an expansion. They've purchased some properties, so they've asked to expand the limits of their planned development district that already exists to include those additional properties, as well as some changes to the PD ordinance related to signage. Future land use map this is in our area designated downtown. It's also again it's already zoned plan development but this would incorporate some additional properties that they've purchased and you can see those kind of in this

[1:08:02] area there. You can see the new medical office building that's going up on a part of the property that part was already in the plan development part of it is what's being added. This is the new boundary map showing all of their facilities. And then as I mentioned this would amend the plan development to incorporate their master sign plan which basically identifies about 60 new signs that they will be replacing and or adding new signs throughout their campus. You can see some samples here of really nice monument attractive signs that they propose, again, throughout their campus. One other feature here, if you are familiar with the intersection of Harrison, Maine, you know that Harris, there's a slide offset, a jog. And so what Shannon has agreed to do is leave this area here basically vacant. They won't place any signs or structures or parking within that area so that in the future that would be available for the city to either swap land or purchase that so that someday Harris could be lined up rather than have that offset. So they've Shannon has worked with us to basically preserve that area for that future of possibility. Some of the key rationales for approval of downtown as I mentioned this is designated downtown but the properties that were incorporating our zone CGCH which really isn't appropriate you may recall a former gas station and transmission shop we're on a couple of those properties so this gets it more in line with the downtown development we you know we prefer to see in that area it is consistent with the area and as I I mentioned preserving that area for future road movement.

[1:10:06] We did send out our notifications. We did receive three in favor and one in opposition. Staff does recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the plan development district, expanding the boundary, rezoning it and amendments regarding signage. With five conditions, again, the signage I mentioned would require urban design review for new construction on the side. Any encroachments into the right of way would require city council approval. That's already a requirement of ordinances. We just want to include it as a condition, just sort of a reaffirmation of that to make clear to everyone involved that that's required. And again, similarly, the river corridor approval is required. Whether we included in the plan development, it's required anyway. But again, to kind of be comprehensive, we wanted to include it here just to reiterate that. So again before you as the amendment to the Plan Development District staff does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission. And I was in that planning commission meeting I believe that you were also Harry this was very well it was very well vetted out and I don't have a problem with the proposal here. Any comments from Council? This is in my district I will have to say that I had the opportunity yesterday to go for the ribbon-cutting grand opening of other new clinic building that John had shown in the picture. Shannon does a great job and as long as that we've they're taking care of the conditions I'd move to approve this one as presented. I'll second. You have a motion to approve it's present and I do have a second do I have any of the comments from council or questions? Do I have public comment on this item. Motion has been made that we accept this as presented all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed nay? 5-0-7 Brian. Item number B is the first public hearing regarding the voluntary annexation of 17.192 acres

[1:12:09] generally located south of the US Highway 67 in west of south and boulevard at the end of Willicki Drive and Pinyon Ridge Drive John. Thank you This is the annexation you saw meeting or two ago. You accepted the petition for annexation to start the ball rolling on the annexation process. This is the first public hearing. As you note, there will be three more opportunities for public hearing. This is for public comment. Only no action is required today. It's just to give interested parties the opportunity to comment. You can see here, here's 67, Southland. It kind of gives you a sense of where this is located. It's actually will just be the next phase of that subdivision that you can see there, expanding that, pulling it into the city limits. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone that cares to speak to this pro-arcon? If so, this is your opportunity. Steve Hampton, I wonder when you annex a situation like this, do they have to put in parks or anything of that nature? Is there any kind of requirement or do you have a method that you go about in planning such things? I know that we have a lot of parks, but it seems like as we grow, we're gonna need more. Our parks and they're well used. And I think the people appreciate them. I get some understanding on this. I don't think we would want to burden them with a park if we don't want to burden them with $1,000 for a fee. Parks have to be maintained. You don't just build a park and walk off the street.

[1:14:11] Certainly the city does not have a park dedication ordinance in place. So while that has been discussed as an option that could be implemented, there is not one in place currently. There's not one, okay. Bill to park, Rocky. After we're getting the city to accept the drainage easements in the street. So Rocky Temple and developer, I just want to thank staff for they did a great job on this so far and look forward to going through the future and everybody agreeing with it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment on this? I have any further questions from council? I think this is probably one or six. I'm not sure, but someone need to take over and let's make a motion one way or the other. No action on this, no action. That's right, I'm sorry, I was in La La Land. Yes, this is public hearing. Is there any further public hearing on this item? Okay, we're gonna call this another. We're gonna hold this one, no action required. You already said that once, didn't you? I did. Number C is that appeal of approval by the Planning Commission regarding a conditional use to allow for a telecommunication facility in the general commercial and heavy commercial CGCH zoning district on property gender located along the south side of McCann Street between South Bell and Fulton Streets John James. Thank you this is a conditional use appeal as you know conditional uses go to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission is normally the final decision-maker on conditional use. However, our ordinance does allow the option of an appeal to the council. You can see here the location here's Bell Street in McCann. The subject property is here in yellow and you can see the dot there would be the location of the proposed tower. This is the future land use map. It is in an area of a strip of commercial along Bell but there is the neighborhood back behind it as well as neighborhood off to the other side.

[1:16:17] The zoning map similarly has commercial along Bell residential behind it. You can see that the proposed tower location is within the commercial area and our ordinance requires that any cell tower be located at least 100 feet from residential and this distance here is just over 100 feet so they do comply with that standard. the subject property and the pictures here. This is the site plan again showing the same thing. You can see the cell tower location and then the perimeter fence, which our ordinance also requires. Our rationale for approval, we believe the impacts are minimized. It does meet the standards of our zoning ordinance in terms of separation, both from the street from adjacent residential. It is consistent with the zoning ordinance. We believe it's compatible with the surrounding area given the commercial zoning and the separation from residential. We anticipate no environmental impacts of the cell tower. There is community need. We've seen a number of these as need for data and self service grows. We see more and more towers and so companies are looking for appropriate locations to site them. And again, it is developed, is in the commercial area. So we believe that is why it's appropriate. We did send out a notifications. We did receive none in favor. We received a total of nine in opposition. Seven of those were within the notification area. Two were outside of the area. Many of those were included on a petition that we received. And you can see here the properties in red are representative of the properties that were in opposition. We did recommend a three conditions of approval. No more than one tower. Should not exceed 100 feet in height.

[1:18:19] Comply with all the other standards of the zoning ordinance. The petitioner shall indicate the exact location of the site latitude longitude coordinates. There will be one more condition I'll mention in just a second. Staff did recommend approval with those three conditions. This did go to the Planning Commission. They approved it with four conditions, so they had an added condition. That was a 7.0 unanimous vote. Their added condition was that only a slim line monopole tower structure be utilized. So something like a lattice tower, one of these larger footprint towers, would not be allowed. It's only a thin monopole which could be used. Again, Planning Commission did approve this. However, some of the opponents in the neighboring properties have appealed this to you to reconsider that decision. Would you go back to that slide, please, Don? Hello. The opposition? Yes, that one right there. Osen read opposing. Correct. Seven within the notification area. That's correct. Mr. Rivas, I think this is the one you were waiting for, sir. I'll let you talk now, sir. I won't stop yet. I'm sorry about the confusion earlier. No problem. ahead and state your name to start with and we'll do it right. Okay my name is Richard Grievous I've lived here in San Angelo for 60 years all of my all of my life. Not not all of your life yet. Well correct but I plan to stay here don't plan to go anywhere but heaven. I've been in business I own Grievous and some pain and body repair. I've been there in the same location for 25 years When I first got there, when I purchased my land, there was a billboard there.

[1:20:23] I used to have a lot of problems there because of the birds, the birds, the pigeons, anything that could fly would stay there. They would build nests and stuff, and we had a lot of bird droppings, and they would make a mess. You know, we repair vehicles, we paint vehicles, and we'd have a lot of problems with bird droppings, and they would ruin a lot of the work that we'd do. So even though that sign would make revenue for us, it was actually a liability because because it would do so much damage. So I had to have them removed the sign, even though I was taking money out of my pocket, revenue out of my pocket, it was costing me money. And that's one of my concerns about having a tower there in the back because is there gonna be a birds roosting up there and causing damage to the work that I do? And vehicles is one of the biggest, the second biggest investments that people invest in. And, you know, people want their cars to be taken care of while they're in my possession as well. Also, is this gonna bring down the value of our land? You know, people around the neighborhood, you know, one of their largest investments is their homes. You know, is this gonna bring down the value on their homes or on my property? You know, I plan to leave my business to my kids. You know, is that gonna bring down the value, the resale value on it? Also, is there any side effects, long-term side effects? You know, my kids are gonna be taking over my business. Is there any side effects as far as having a tower up there?

[1:22:24] Another one of my concerns is may sound kinda silly, But is that a target of interest for the enemy, the people who are actually wanting to come to war with us? Would that be a target of interest for them? It's, you know, a lot of things concern me about having a tower, and that's all I have. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your patience, Mr. Redes. Good morning. I'm just gonna own some property right around the tower. transmission work don't you? Yes sir and then I have the transmission shop 1320 South Bell and then 1442 South Bell which joins Rivas and also that the back of it is the plotted area for the tire. It has a house in the back right behind 1440 that's address 1440 two and now it's actually the property line from the house to the tire area is less than a hundred foot. I think it's probably from where they got the tire staked the tire itself is probably maybe a hundred and I also have two lots on Fulton, and these things are pretty unsightly, and I know they affect property values, and this is one of my concerns. So there's a tower that I think you see a 200 block of Southville.

[1:24:32] This is a 1400 block of Southville kind of behind. So we're talking like 12 blocks from another tower and I was interested if the city was wanting these tires everywhere in town like 12 bucks apart. I talked to a personnel with the American tire and he told me that on these tires they can put them like more than one side-by-side. There are different frequencies that don't affect each other and like the TV stations there's two tires right there together had an arms from you know he says that it doesn't affect them you know putting them together I don't know why if we need more tires they don't put them more together than doing them like ever 12 blocks in the city you know that's one reason I oppose it and thank y'all thank you very much I'm the one who started the petition for the local neighborhood and the residents that the area is going to be affected. We have a number of concerns. We strongly oppose the use of this area for the projected project. First of all, this is kind of a weird location because of how the commercial area is in the middle of a residential zone.

[1:26:32] If you see the red dot where the projected tower is supposed to be located, there's two two houses that I know of, I'm not sure if I could, can I draw them here? In that square, there's two houses right there. That's one house. And I know there's another little rent house, it's like a studio apartment that's in the back of another house. It's somewhere located like, either way, this lot here that I'm fixing to draw. It's like a commercial zone, but only that first square is commercial, and the rest is considered like residential. So anyway, it's a weird location. The projected site, it's right in the middle. It's surrounded by residential areas. So I'm a resident of Fulton Street, which would be not the street over here. And there's no houses. There's nothing in front of us except for commercial. You got this commercial, commercial, what is it? You enjoyed the drawing, aren't you? You got the Belmore Baptist Church over here. You got the Korean Church. So what I'm trying to say is we have no front residential neighbors. The first thing we see when we walk out of our house

[1:28:34] is commercial, commercial, commercial. And then so first, sightly, appearance, property values a thing of our concern if the tower was to go up right there. That would be the first thing we see and like I projected to propose to the planning commission I was like I don't know how many of y'all would like to walk out of your front yard and the first thing you're gonna see is a cell phone tower regardless of how big it is. Now I was looking at giving everything the benefit of the down I was looking at the Belmore Baptist Church I was looking at the Korean Baptist Church that's right in front of us. And even their tallest steeple, I don't know, I mean, I don't know the numbers of how high the steeple is on their church, but it's way shorter than 100 feet. So what I'm trying to say is this, if this tower goes up, it's gonna surpass the church steeple. And that's gonna be behind this commercial property here. That's one of the concerns I wanna state. The other thing I want to state is, on the other slide, I said there's no anticipated health or environmental issues. No anticipated. That doesn't say there's no environmental issues. There's no health issues. That's just no anticipated. So I've been there at that residence for 25, 30 years, and I plan to stay there as long as I can. So what are the long-term health except this cell phone tower? And I understand that there's towers all around town, but like I proposed to the Planning Commission, we're already exposed to cell phone radiation in our daily lives everywhere we go when we go to school, go to work. We're already exposed to it. The last thing I need is being exposed to it, again, when I go home. Let me see what else. Property values was already mentioned.

[1:30:34] How's that gonna affect our property value? Just a minute, please. Council is way over his three minutes. Y'all don't allow him to finish up since he is talking about the petition. That's nice. OK, I'm almost done. And the last thing I want to state is one of the residents on that last slide where one of the residents, like somewhere right here on Fulton Street, I can't drop here anymore. But anyway, she works for AT&T. And she deals with this kind of, I don't know exactly what she deals with, but I know she works for AT&T. she was talking to me and she said that there is a lot of health issues that come from these towers. I know this is a different company, not AT&T, but from what her expertise, from her job, she stated that there is a lot of health issues that come from these towers. So again, my main concern is it's right on the line. I think it's too close to the residential area. It's a weird location. It's a commercial that's in the middle of residential. And I just don't think it's the appropriate place. I'm not against cell phone towers going up. I just don't think that is the right location for it. Thank you very much if you comment and I appreciate the work that you've done on this. That's exactly the way government is supposed to work. So I thank you for that. Thank you. Mayor, I have a comment. Yes, ma'am. This decision, though, we have broad discretion on approving or disapproving these towers, that it's governed by the US Code, which prohibits us for considering the health effects from the radio waves as part of the decision-making process. So please keep that in mind. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am? My name is Elizabeth Rios. I live in the corner of Fulton and McCann, and I'm just here to say that I would not like the tower to be put up for a lot of reasons. My house is in front of the field of the man that owns the field over here. He has like a construction step or something. And that's what I see in the

[1:32:35] mornings when I get up. You know, when I go out, I see that mess in front of my house. And I'm a single parent. I will, my son's already grown, but I live on myself. I'm disabled. And I like to go out in my porch. I smoke a cigarette. And I like to look around and see what I can hear. And what I'm going to be hearing is when they're building that thing. And then afterwards, I'm going to see that big old thing too. And I don't think it's a good idea. So that's what I'm just going to say. Thank you for your comments, ma'am. I have further public comment on this item. Good morning, sir. My name is Chris Syndrome, and I'm with Star Towers. And I guess I just wanted to maybe answer any questions that the council might have, and maybe address some of the stuff that was brought up by the citizens. Does anybody have any questions? Anybody have any questions, Boyd? This is in my area and of course the citizens have been after me since the planning commission meeting approval on this to take a look at it. I guess my question would be if you had approval on this how long would the construction take and how often after the construction would somebody have to come and check on whatever at the tower? usually will take about 30 days and that's just it's not every day 30 days it's different we go through civil work we go through the concrete we go through you know there's there's intermittent times but it usually never goes over 30 days traffic after that is going to be if something goes down with an antenna and a regular size pickup truck with you know the technicians would come out to work work on the antennas. Tower-wise, once it's up, we don't really, I mean, there's not anything

[1:34:35] that ever goes on after the fact other than putting up the new antennas if a new carrier comes on, which they usually do that within three or four days, you know, if we get a new carrier on, it takes about three or four days for them to come out, install the antennas, and they're out of there. So, traffic-wise and stuff like that, it's going to be very minimal once the tower is is erected well this tower looks similar to the one that's over on South Oaks is that is it a it looks like a light standard a light pole yes sir yes and it'll have right now we just have T-Mobile as our primary anchor tenant and if if AT&T or Verizon everybody else comes on you know we we We do have the capacity to put four carriers on that tower just to hit one of the points of the proximity of the towers in the 12 blocks that was mentioned earlier. Because of the data load that people want to be on their phones 24-7, it's making that years ago we could build a tower and it could be a mile or two apart. We are literally within a quarter mile and a lot of times smaller than that. T-Mobile was on that tower that he mentioned 12 blocks away. So it would do them no good. They need the coverage, the gap, because of the traffic. Yes, we are close to a residential neighborhood, because that's where the people are. They're the ones who want to use their phone. So we do have to find the commercial areas. This is a weird lot. It is a commercial zoned lot that we have met the setbacks and the requirements for. So I understand a lot of the concern, but we are doing everything by the book to make sure it's handled correctly. I would also make one comment to the residents that live on Fulton and McCann in that particular area era

[1:36:35] because I'm only about two or three blocks from there. Personally, I would rather look at the tower than I would with all of the vehicles the boats and storage behind that particular area. But again, I'm not walking out my front door every day either, so. In regards to property value, we reached out to Mr. Timmons, the staff appraiser at the Tom Green County, and he basically wrote us an email that said that there's nothing that It says that is proven that shows that property values are going to decrease or increase or taxes are going to decrease or increase because of that tower. That property, because there is a tower on it, yes, that will increase and that stuff that our company incurs the cost of. It doesn't affect the other citizens around that property. Is your company in San Angelo? we're based out of Arlington, Texas. We have, currently we have towers in Abilene, Paris, Shreveport, we're working on a tower in Mason, and Wichita Falls. You don't live in San Angelo? No, sir. No, sir. So Mr. Ernst, do you live in San Angelo? Mr. Rayless. I personally, we don't have that sort of thing. We don't have any, this is our first time. We do need to come to the microphone. They can't hear you talk. You not on television with me back there. And I just wanted to make the point that these citizens that are opposing this live right there for that tower. You do not. Can I agree with you? And I will also. And talk to Mike, please. Also make a point that these citizens do, I would assume, do you have a cell phone? Yes, sir. They all have cell phones, they all use cell phones, and they want cell phone coverage. Who's Jay?

[1:38:35] Okay, my cell phone works, and you weren't an angel, I haven't had a problem with it. It works right now before the tower. I understand that he needs a tire where he can make money. And just like he said, the tire at a 200 block has only two deals on it. He says two sold and he can put four. Why don't they double up on these tires instead of putting more of them all over town? And another two's, yeah. There's only three major carriers. That's the deal. There's only three major carriers. So my point was we built the tower so that it can handle as many. so you don't have to put up towers right next to each other around, we're trying to make it to where each carrier can meet their coverage, and you don't have to have these things pop up everywhere. So American Tower owns a lot of towers in town. In Verizon sold out, and there are other towers to American Tower, and it's kind of like signboards, you know, a company comes in, they want to put up some signboards. It's all about money, and people have to live with it. And there's a city council want towers every 12 blocks? Do I have any further public comment on this? Because I'm about to call for a vote. Any other questions, Castle? I have two questions. Do you have a diagram or a picture of what exactly this tower looks like? Because everybody has in mind that you have those large towers supported by cables. the all can be a part maybe a power transmission you know that that you see the other just a thick metal pole there's no guy wires there's no and that was part of the stipulation that he mentioned about doing a slimline poll was that

[1:40:35] that's the only thing we can do and that's the only thing we want to be there's no room to have Lattice tower or a guide tower, you know, it's just going to be a single poll. Second question and have you looked for any other suitable places that are in a commercial district that's not so close to a neighborhood? Any luck in that area? I mean, we've contacted in the commercial areas we went through that whole that whole area and That was one of our that was the only candidate that would would be willing to work with us and that met the requirements of T-Mobile's coverage Any data to support that people are losing service in that area? We did supply propagation maps. Did Alec get you the propagation maps? No. Okay. We can get those. I mean, if that's a net necessity, but yes, T-Mobile has provided that to us. I thought it was passed on, but to show where the coverage drops are and why they need to be in this area. It's an infill, so basically what they're trying to do is meet coverage between two additional towers to provide the coverage. No, there's one tower 12 blocks away. All right, the gentleman said, on the opposite side, how far is the next tower, do we know? Oh, I don't know that. I mean, I have a map of all their sites, but this was the one we were focusing on. Yes, sir. Where are the mayor and city council? My name is Frankie Gary, I own the property, and of course I'm not against it. Just for the record I'd like to say, you know, I live in the area, I live four or five blocks away. I bought this property to my intentions where to build storage buildings there, but I find out I have to do a lot of other things besides, you know, besides that. I do have a problem sometimes with people driving on the lot

[1:42:38] and spending donuts or one of the businesses next door parking their cars on my property. I have to keep asking them and they don't seem to care whether they plot parking on my property or not. But I haven't put up a fence because I'd like to leave it open for kids to have a place to play in the neighborhood. And it's a big, big lot. It's almost three quarters of an acre. And so I haven't fenced it in. I haven't used it for anything. And I just like to just for the record say that, you know, I'm for it and I was here and good to see you Duane. Thank you, Mr. Gary. There are one more time. I just have a quick comment one last thing. I want to state the two Individuals companies that are for it Do not live here. They don't live right in front of it. They're not gonna have to deal with it. They're not gonna have to see it Thank you. Thank you, sir. You got just made it mr. Davis. Just one other thing how far? These these towers that they're putting up how far is that signal good for is it good for a mile two miles five miles ten miles? I'd like to know that how far is is it the next tower that they own? That the same company wants to put up, you know, I think I'm gonna give you an answer, sir It really depends on what equipment they're using their the antennas that they're coming out with now or more specific to the the new 4G and 5G that's coming out. These antennas, it depends on what's in front of them. It depends, I mean, there's a whole lot that goes into it, but like I said, years ago we could build towers in a mile or two apart, and they would be able to handle the traffic. Now, it's not just how far they can transmit, it's how much traffic is on this tower. If this tower is so full that it can't provide the service

[1:44:39] to the customer, they've got to offload that some way or another. And a lot of times that's why these towers are having to be built closer together so that they can maintain that coverage for the customer as they're driving down the road or whatever they're doing. So it depends. They're getting closer and closer to answer your question. Thank you, Matt. Any other public comment on this item? I have one more little thing to say. He says about the cell phones and all that. I said, I'm old-fashioned, I'm old-school, I'm 60 years old. And I don't know the cell phone, I still have a house phone, and I'm doing really good with it. Thank you. One more comment, Duane. Since I live in this particular neighborhood, about five blocks from where this proposed tower is, I can tell you there is need for increased tower somewhere in that neighborhood, because quite honestly, signal drops out on a regular basis and I'm certainly not technical. The gentleman explained that it's because of the number of users in that area and I'll have to say this about the young lady that just came to the microphone. I'm 71 years old man so but I do have two cell phones. It's in your area Harry go ahead and make motion one way that unless said a list deal. Well I'm gonna make a motion that we oppose the I don't know how we need to do this. Deny the appeal. To go ahead and deny the appeal based on all of the information that we've seen and just follow what the Planning Commission has as supported. So to deny the appeal means the tower goes up. Okay, the motion has been made that we deny the appeal to stop the tower.

[1:46:43] Do I have a second on this? Do I have a second to deny the appeal? Sorry, no second to deny the appeal. The tower does not go up. No, that's not the way it works. If you're going to, we're going to have to take another vote to actually deny the tower, but if you're going to do so, the US code does have specific requirements that the denial be in writing, so we'll drop after resolution based on your discussion, but it has to list specific, specific reasons that are not, as I said, related to the radio waves for the trial. So you need a motion now to deny the appeal. To not deny the appeal. To uphold the appeal. I need a motion from someone to uphold the appeal. To uphold the appeal, which means the tower does not. And then she can come up with the necessary legal work to make it. I'm going to need you guys to talk a little bit more on the basis of what you're denying it You're actually denying this conditional use permit on certain grounds, and we need those grounds so that we can put them into We need to tell you why you need to tell us why I have a comment it's The mayor not too long ago had mentioned that our homes are our biggest investments the fact that Everyone's home is important to them And I feel that the people in this residence I drove by there yesterday and the people that are in this residency Neighborhood That those homes they've worked hard for them and that's their pride That's what they've done and they would like to continue to work. I mean that that neighborhood Can use a little Revitalization, but for most parts the people working on those homes And I believe that they should continue to be proud of where they live and not have to

[1:48:46] look at the tower and no telling what else will come in the future. So for that reason, that would be the reason that I would vote against the tower. And I will uphold the appeal because enough people that live in that area have come forward and said we don't want it. And that's kind of the same thing we're doing here. We take a vote and the majority wins. I think the majority says we don't want this thing and they have got a very concentrated effort even to the point of petitions to protect their neighborhoods and I will respect what they have done. Is that enough to put onto a poll? That's pretty vague. Do you have any more specifics? Anybody? I don't know how to make it any plainer than that. The people don't want it. The people that live in the neighborhood. I don't know how to get much more vague. I don't know how to get much more plain than that. They don't want it. The people that live in the neighborhood that look at it each and every day do not want it. That's enough for me to vote against it. Just another real quick comment. We've had a number of people come up pose this today. Petition that was signed by nine individuals that represent probably four or 500 people in that particular area, and that about four or five block area over there. So nine people have come and done what they need to do today, but that doesn't represent all the rest of the people that live in that neighborhood. I need a motion to uphold the appeal. To uphold the appeal. That means no placement of the tower. Do you have a motion to uphold the appeal? Now I need a second for this one. I'll second. I do have a second that we uphold the appeal. And I think we've had ample public comment. We've had questions I ask an answer from the council.

[1:50:47] What else, Brian? In the motion, you'll need to state that you're upholding the appeal and denying the conditional use. Do you make a motion to uphold the appeal, denying the conditional use? And do you second such said proposal? I've got it. And we've told you why. I'm going to call for the vote. The vote? Let me say this one. Yes, sir. My reasoning, I think there could be a little bit more research done on placement. Add that to it. All of those that are in favor of upholding the appeal that does not allow the tower please say aye. Aye. Any on the other side say nay. Aye. Put a 4-1 on it and it has been the appeal has been upheld and the tower will not be placed there at this time and it is 1023 I'm call in the 15 minute break. Yes and let's call this meeting back to order and we've got another denial up next. Now item D is an appeal of a denial by the planning commission in regard to the second replad in track 213 Red Creek subdivision and requests for variances from the following sections of land development and subdivision ordinance A. A variance from section 911.8.5 requiring the dedication of 5 feet of right away to meet the requirements of a local rural road, Landers Road. B, a variance from section 9.V requiring the installation of sidewalks along Landers Road, a roadway containing pavement that is less than 36 feet in width. C, a variance to section 9.111.C.2 which prohibits dead-end roadways, Landers Road from exceeding 750 linear feet in length. D, a variance from section 9.111.C.2 to allow for more than 40 lots or tracks to

[1:52:52] have exclusive frontage along the Dead End Road, Landers Road, and E, a variance from section 10.111.A.2 requiring the improvement of Landers Road by five feet in order to meet minimum payment widths for a local rural road. On property generally located outside of the the San Angelo Municipal Corporate Limits, and within the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, E.T.J., at the Southwest Corner, a Fairview and Fairview Schools Road. John James. The mouthful. You write that stuff? Who writes that stuff? Well, we do write that, but it's based on legal requirements, so. Unfortunately. It's difficult for this Lakeview boy to read it, I can tell you. We don't talk black that on the Northia, that's a rule. Again, John James, Director of Planning and Development Services. This is a replat. It's an appeal of a denial, as you mentioned, of a replat. You can see the location here, and you'll see it better when we will show a little bit bigger zoom out. This is the proposed replat. You can see it's one lot, roughly two and a half acres, that they proposed to split into three separate lots with flag access to each lot with a shared easement, you know, to get to the rear lots. This is the original subdivision flat, and so you can see the red here in the middle is the proposed replat of the lot, and so you can see it's similar to all the lots around it roughly the same size, they would are proposing to take that one lot and split it up even further into smaller lots. The primary issue, there are a number of variances that you read off, but the issue here is one in particular. And before I get off of this screen, I'll show that everything in yellow is all accessed

[1:54:57] on Landers Road that basically comes and dead ends at this point. And so all of 47 lots currently only come out of that location. And so in our ordinance, there's a section that says the maximum length allowed of a cul-de-sac or dead end street is 750 feet. This already exceeds that, but it was platted outside the city limits before these rules were applicable. It also goes on to say in no circumstances, though, shall any dead end street provide exclusive frontage to more than 40 lots or tracks of land. As I mentioned, this area already provides exclusive access to 47 lots. The splitting of this into four pieces would create 50 lots that are only accessed on this one dead end street. Was that applicable when this was first planted? are these new rules that they're having to go through after 1978? It was not applicable to this original subdivision. However, now, if they want to go in and split an existing lot into more pieces, those rules would now apply. So as long as they continue on as they are now, they're good, you know, they're further rules in place at that time. But if they want to split it up even farther, then they would have to comply with the rules today. in the rules today say there's already too many lots, they can't create more. And they asked for this in 1978 would there have been any laws against it? Not to my knowledge. So in other words, they're dealing with rules today that they were not dealing with in 1978. And so again, the main issue here is before we even get to the point of considering their list of five variances, the question arose that the ordinance says in no circumstance shall more than 40 lots be allowed.

[1:57:00] And so our interpretation of that is it's not subject to a variance request. Most things in the subdivision ordinance can be varied. You know, if we require 60 feet of lot frontage, for example, they can come in and say, well, what about 55? Does that work? And the Planning Commission can grant a variance to that. As you noted, they requested a variance to not have to build a sidewalk. The roads too narrow and so normally a sidewalk will be required. They've asked not to have to build that sidewalk. That is something that they can ask for a variance. However, because this ordinance says in no circumstance, no more than 40 shall be allowed. Our interpretation of that provision of the ordinance is that is not able to be varied because of that. The variance provision in the ordinance does say that the Planning Commission may prove variance to these subdivision regulations, provided the variances shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. I think looking at the purpose of the regulations makes clear that it says in no circumstance. It's not a, is there a reasonable reason not to do this? And so we don't believe that there's any way to not nullify the intent of the ordinance if you were to consider this variance. We made this similar case to the Planning Commission, and that was the rationale for their denial. So they did not go on to consider any of the other variants requests, because if you can't meet this one, there's no purpose in going on. Our recommendation is to uphold the Planning Commission's denial. If you are to consider not upholding that denial, we would recommend that you do send it back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the plat and all of those other variances. But again, our recommendation is for Denal as well as the Planning Commissions. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[1:59:05] Well, I don't see that we've got much right to come in in 2017 and change something that was done in 1978. I mean, if in 1978 they could make 80 lots out of this originally. And we come in in 17 and say, well, you can't do it today, because we changed all the rules. I agree that there should be some variants allowed. Also have a problem with this road. How wide do you want to make this road? What are you asking for? Well, what was the width currently at the 20-foot wide road? And again, we have standards, adopted standards for a 30-foot wide road, which they would only have to do their half of the road. So that's five additional feet of pavement. And we would also require a sidewalk unless we grant a variance. That's correct. You know, and I didn't say anything about this two years ago when we were building Smith Boulevard to Howard College because we needed that road so badly to protect those students. But if my memory serves me correct, the city as the developer built a road I think was 24 foot wide four foot wide and it did not have a sidewalk and we chose as a city to exempt ourselves from the very same rules that we're trying to make the developers use now not in the city of San Angelo but in the county in the in the ETJ and somebody might correct me on that City Road Smith Boulevard but if my memory is correct that road does not meet the requirements that you're asking this developer to meet and we exempted ourselves from that because they said we didn't have the money to build it and I voted for it because it was so very important to Howard College and we'd already dealt with about three or four different scenarios and we had to do something to protect those kids and that concerns me when the city says we can be developer and we can make our own rules

[2:01:07] and exempt ourselves but we're not going to exempt anyone else that's that's a a real concern to me. Well, I will say that those standards have been varied multiple times by the Planning Commission. So in fact, almost every Planning Commission meeting, there's a plat that asks for a variance of some sort. Many of those get approved. However, from our perspective, a previous council has adopted an ordinance that's our job to enforce. It says streets need to be a minimum width. Our job is to enforce that width. We could bring back different standards for streets. If you think what we're requiring is excessive, however, our opinion is as long as there's a rule in place that says a street needs to be a certain width, our job is to hold any developer to that width. I'm sure I don't recall the case you're talking about mayor, but I would assume at that meeting that the staff presented that exact information. know, what actually I don't know, but I'm sure the standards were presented. Well, I meant to go out there and measure the street. I was going out yesterday and I ran out of time. So I'm just going by memory and I could be wrong. I could be wrong, but I know that it did not meet the width standards that we required because we had to make an exception because it was a smaller street. And I voted for it. I voted for it because it was so important to get that street down, but that doesn't change the fact that if we're going to require developers to meet a certain standard, the city should not be able to exempt herself from the same standards. Let me remind you again that the Planning Commission did not consider any of these variances. We would likely have recommended granting the sidewalk variance, for example, perhaps even the street width. We've recommended those in the past based on discussions with engineering, again, in this case, those weren't even considered because you've stopped right there. Too many lots, and so it was no point going beyond that.

[2:03:09] So really, the question before you all today isn't really about the sidewalk variance or the street with variance. It's whether or not this plat should even be considered given that it increases the number beyond the legal limit of lots on the dead end street. I have no problem with giving them the right of variance to allow these lots. Because when this thing was up, when it was when it was platted, it was allowed. And we've come along later on after it was platted, and we changed rules. So I have a problem when you change rules after something's already did. I have no problem giving a variance on this. Let's listen to the rest of the councils. What do y'all think about this? Well, the first problem I have with this, and certainly we're not going to change this, is we just talked about Foster Road, which is only one way in and one way out. Landers Road is the same way, and you may not have the issue today of flooding in this particular area, but my concern in this development is, is you don't have any access out the other end. So, quite honestly, I don't wanna add any more lots in this area when you only have one way in and one way out. We should be having these developers make these subdivisions in a way that you have access from multiple ways. Is there any other way in or out? I mean, is there a way to put a road at the end? Is that just farmland at the end of the yellow development? I would defer to the applicant to maybe answer that question. I assume that that looks like that's been planned that it could continue on into the future, but I actually don't know what's up there. Because even in the Butler farms, we've talked about even an unimproved road that they could get in and get out a separate way would be something that would be one of the compromises we could make. I'm interested to see if there is another way that they could get out if they had to get out.

[2:05:10] If the applicant is here, I'd like to have an answer on that. Hey, Herb. According to the council, Herb Hooker with SKG Engineering, this plant was an approved county plant that was done back in 1978, essentially 40 years ago, with approved county roadways, approved county right of ways. And the action we're taking is not actually on behalf of a developer. I mean, it's a private landowner. The replat strives to create four lots. Right now, there are four residences on this lot. They're not going anywhere. If you approve the replat, all that does is allow these people to buy their lots and get their little part of the American dream, home ownership and all that stuff. But they're not going anywhere. If this was vacant land, I think we would look at it quite a bit differently. But it's not. There's four residences. Well, there's four homes, only four lots that they want to divide. Right now. Yeah, they just want to be able to buy them. And that's all we're doing is bookkeeping. We're just we're just making something that has been in effect for years and years and years. We're just trying to make it Make it work since essentially if we don't divide this the people are still there You know, I think Point on this whole thing is I get over to Right here When we look at this statement right here the intent and purpose of these regulations, talking about the ordinance. And everybody understands that the ordinance, you know, we're talking about subdivision ordinance, but the zoning ordinance or the building code, this is all to protect the public. And your job as city councilman is to protect the public.

[2:07:10] Sometimes the good in the ordinance is hard to see. And so what you look for is the bad and you make sure you don't do anything that is bad to the citizens. If that makes any sense, it's sometimes good, it's hard to define, bad is a lot easier to see. The intent and purpose of these regulations is kind of the crux of the situation, and the word intent itself is subjective. So, you aren't constrained by the black and white verbiage of the ordinance necessarily. you can use your own judgment as to how the regulations are enforced and what the intent might be. And John was pretty good at explaining the situation. It was a big surprise about effectively an hour before the Planning Commission meeting came up. We got a revised report from the Planning Department that indicated that because there were over 40 lots on this existing data in roadway that the Planning Commission was forced to deny it, that there was no relief from the appeal process for over 40 lots on this roadway. So we went to the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Department representative got up and essentially told the Planning Commission members the same thing, that they were forced to deny this without any discussion or anything, because we were over the 40-lot limit on a date in roadway. I got up there and told them that we understood the situation and hoped we could come to some other conclusion And that's why I'm here. What we're looking at is the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance. And really, the big number is the 40-lot maximum number on the dead-end roadway. And we understand the need to have some control, some limits on dead-end roadways. But the lots don't use the road.

[2:09:11] The people use the road. And so how do you quantify the people on that roadway? And you normally do that by households. And you assign one household per lot in a typical situation. One lot, one household, and you come up with your magic number 40, could be 30, could be 50, but we're dealing with 40 right here. Landers Road, isn't a typical situation. In that there's some owners that own more than one lot. There's actually seven, eight owners that own two lots. There's one owner that owns three lots. There's one owner that owns five lots. And these all function as one household. One, you know, two lots, one household, five lots, one household. And these people aren't gonna come by and replat their multi-lots into one single lot just so the lot count benefits are replat in this situation. But nonetheless, they function as one household, one lot. If you'll go to the city GIS website that's tied to the appraisal district, you'll find that there are actually only 36 landowners on Landers Road. So what I'm trying to get at is that household, I mean, intent of the ordinance could be substituted for a lot number. And so if we go by the household number with the intent of the ordinance in this situation, we are under that 40 threshold. And I think that would be a good justification for you to be able to approve the replat. Which gets us to the point, if you find this to be in the best interest of the public and even more so, you find it not to be a bad thing, does this council have the authority to approve this re-plant. And if so, I've got some brief discussion on the variances, but. I'd like to send this back to the planning department

[2:11:16] and let them look at this, because I think you make some very valuable points, Herb. I'll make a comment. Yes, ma'am. We're talking about what the intent of this ordinance is, and often in zoning cases, that is true, we look at that. But in this particular case, there's very specific language that's written in this section that says, in no circumstances. When we look at ordinance interpretation or statutory interpretation everywhere that's put in or left out means something. If they intended for this to be something that could be varied, there would be no point to put in no circumstances in that language. Who wrote that? Well, it was written and approved by council back in whenever, you know, when this provision was written. 1987. 20 years after this, or 10 years after this was done. So we do have a method by which to change that if we no longer believe that that's proper language, but that's through an ordinance amendment that's spelled out in the charter, how that's to be accomplished. So, you know, you have to overcome that in no circumstances language. I'd say let's redo the ordinance and get rid of in those circumstances, so there's some just a little bit of common sense in the ordinance, because this to me is not common sense. I believe there's only one other place. I'd take this back to the Planning Commission and let them look at it again and look at each one of these variances independently and see what they could come up with and just instead of saying we can't even look at this because of in those circumstance that doesn't that that's you don't make laws that say in those circumstance without any right of appeal. You made two of them because it's listed that way twice in the in the ordinance so we can take a look at both of those. Is that mean Teresa that we really can't do anything until we change the ordinance. That means that the only option in my interpretation of in no circumstances unless somebody can convince me it can mean something else today is to deny the plot or table the plot at possibly at some and look at it later but the way to get around that language today in my opinion is to actually change the ordinance.

[2:13:17] This takes away the right of counsel when you say in no circumstance that takes away any right of any appeal in any way and that's not what ordinances are. Ordinances are supposed to be restable and fair and give the citizens a right of appeal. This takes it away. that phrase needs to leave. That's, I wanted to know if you all had the authority to even make this decision. Well, it'll have to come back to us in an ordinance change, which I would appreciate. But if they want to take it back through the Planning Commission and give them the authority to create a variance, and then they see it just like I said in the way you see it, that intent could be override in those circumstance. But that phrase shouldn't be in there. It shouldn't be in any ordinance. It may be, but it shouldn't be. I mean, that takes away any and all appeal from any and every citizen. I don't have a problem with bringing it back. And if the majority of the council wants to take out the end, no circumstances fine, but as far as today getting things off center, I'm not in favor of, I'm not in favor of sending it back to the council and coming back to the planning commission. And I'm certainly not in favor, whether they're doing it or not, or four houses being on that one a lot. I don't think that was the intent of the subdivision when it was built. I'm really kind of surprised that the rest of the homeowners are even that they don't have a problem with it. So, you know, I move we disallow the appeal. That's the right way of saying it. It's not in the city, it's in the county. I pulled the denial. Pold the denial. That's what I'm looking at. Yeah, I'm sorry for that. Yes, this is a ETJ subdivision. And like I said, it was done back in the 70s with full county approval.

[2:15:19] And with the adoption of the inter-local agreement for the cooperative between the city and the county that created the ETJ, it imposes the city regulations on a lot of existing conditions that are outside the corporate limits that like this one that we have to deal with and they're all Unique and unless we're doing a brand-new development in the ETJ There's always some kind of variances that are that are required because of the existing conditions in the ETJ as far as not ever the purpose of the subdivision. You know, there weren't any deed restrictions that restricted them from not being able to replant their lots or anything like that. And like I said, there's four residences there now. How long have they been there, Herb? I'm guessing those residents have been there at least 10 years. We re-platted the west side of this lot within the last three years and didn't come across the same situation. I don't think it's fair to change rules in the middle of the road. Lang, you answer my question. I was gonna ask how long those residents have been there on that one piece of property. Can we go back to that map that shows the actual satellite view? We have those four properties on one piece of plated land within 10 years, is that correct? Right, I think the whole track originally was 5.5 acres, so we're looking at 2.75 acres. the tracks have to be over a half acre to meet the septic requirement with the public water system. We have a lot of conflicts when we're going back to the ordinance and we have a conflict of which one of those owns that single platted piece of land to pay taxes on. A proponent that that I'm representing owns the entire pizza land. The people are renting it early. Oh, okay. I mean it

[2:17:21] it originally started out as a mother-in-law cabin and then a brother cabin and then another one it was all family members so you can do permanent septic systems up to 5,000 gallons a day treated effluent on your piece of property for family members and don't have to worry about selling it off or anything so that's that's how we got to this point I guess family members moved out and it's it's not getting rented out to these people that want to by. People are still going to be there though the houses are still we don't have the authority to tell them they have to leave because it says in no circumstance and a law that we wrote 10 years after this was approved so we don't have the authority to run them off they're still going to be there why don't we make it legal for it I don't understand why you can't make ruling on the intent of the ordinance if if you believe like I do that we're within the intent by looking at households and and interchanging that with tracks. I understand Teresa's argument too. So I'm kind of at a loss right here. I I would rather y'all have y'all make the decision on this because y'all have a lot more authority than the Planning Commission does. I don't know what you would tell the Planning Commission or the Planning Department to prepare differently To get us to another end. I mean if there's any way that y'all can improve it if you see fit that's what I would prefer. And recently, we're looking at bringing the ordinance back, basically, what we're looking at, because of the way it's stated at this point. That's absolutely the cleanest way to do it. Because if we start making the interpretation that lot actually means family unit, that is going to have broad-based, you know, I'm saying intent. Right. But once we open that door that we can determine or interpret what lot means, which is a pretty right now, clarified term within zoning, we're opening a door that I'm not sure we want to work with. So, you know, if nobody's planning on leaving, this has been in existence for a long time. It takes two readings of council to make an ordinance change and then going back to planning commission

[2:19:22] to look at it again. So it doesn't have to be a long, drawn out process to clean this up. And, you know, as my staff looks at these issues, there are a lot of very unique situations in the ETJ that don't often fit very well. Well, I wouldn't have problem bringing it back and taking out that phrase in those circumstance in letting us, letting us adjust the ordinance. I have no problem with doing that, but I do have a motion on the floor that we deny this or uphold the denial. And I do have a second, so we're gonna have to deal with that one way or the other. Unless you wanna withdraw your motion and your second and let them bring it back to us and see if we can clean this ordinance up. Is the motion for denial because of the ordinance and the way it reads? No, I'm opposed to the whole thing. I'm opposed to the street, the narrowness of the street. I'm opposed to four people being on that one lot, even though nothing's going to change. And in those circumstance, I'm opposed to a lot of it. I'm opposed to the one entrance into the subdivision that we're listening to people talk to us about one way in and one way out and in flooding, and they want us to do something about it. And I'm opposed to all of it. Once again, this is an existing condition that we're dealing with here. I went even around in 78. So when this division was done, I'm not sure what the intent was as far as the dead end roadway going up there. I think it's pasture land up on the North End actually. I went out there, and I was so happy just to find the place said I didn't even go to the end of the road. So in answer to your question, if there's a possible second exit to this roadway, I'd rather not even deal with that. Let's say no. I don't think it was ever planned.

[2:21:23] I've never seen another section of this even proposed. It was planted like this and approved by the county back in the 70s, and that's what we're dealing with. The one thing that has changed is that all this land is now within the ETJ and under the much stricter ordinance, especially subdivision ordinance regulation of the city as opposed to the county regulations. And the county approved it? The county maintains the roads. The county's fine with the roads. So I don't know what to do. I mean, if you all are talking about proposing ordinance change and are prepared to instruct the planning department to make proposed changes along those lines. That's one thing and that might be good and well and might be a change we need to look at with all the ETJ activity that might be happening. But if you're gonna deny this replay it anyway, what's the point? Thanks four votes to deny it. No. Yeah. Majority. Well, we got a motion on the floor. We've got to deal with it. Understand. Do I have public comment on this item? Yes, sir. I'm Chris Juro, and the only comment I have earlier in this meeting, it was stated that there's 47 residences out in Butler Farms, which is also a single access location. Whitney was platted and built within the last 10 years. So how is it that we have over 40 in that area with a dead end, one entrance in, one entrance out? And what did the city council do to alleviate it problem at that time if it says you shall not have more than 40. Thank you. Good question. That question, what the subdivision ordinance says is no dead end street shall have more

[2:23:27] than 40 and in Butler farms there are multiple streets, none of which no individual street has more than 40. What you may recall from the fire code is there's a different limit for the total number of homes that only have one way in and one way out and that was like a hundred and one sixty five and you were called it that was suggested at the time that that number be lower per the traditional fire code the council expanded that to allow more homes than what the fire code would normally allow but the reason the butler farms is different is because there's no individual street with more than 40 but there's still only one way in and one way out correct so no one street can have more than 40 no one way in one way out can have more than 165 run into the same situation where a couple of the land owners out there on a plat wanted to create a street in between and then that kind of just subdivides that whole account of being for more than 40 on a street I don't know if it was in the city limits you would be not be having this question because they've changed all that. Look at Baker Ranch a prime example one entrance in one entrance out has multiple homes but it has multiple streets so the only difference is they're saying this is one street with more than 40 homes when there are other but their farms and other examples with more than one more than one, only one entrance, but 140 homes, but there are multiple streets. To me, there's no difference, so it should be approved. I agree with you, but I'm only one vote. Well, let me further clarify as we were talking about the process for this. If you don't take action on this plot today, when it comes back, it's going to be under this set of rules

[2:25:27] the next time it comes back, because at the time the plot's initiated, those are the rules that apply. If you deny it, they can bring it back. there's options to waive fees and simplify the process as it's essentially done, and then they can bring it back in the new form under whatever new regulations you guys might approve at a later date. I have a question, are they looking at an easement with three individual driveways, or are they talking about putting in a main street, quote unquote, to serve these three lots that are in the back, and then that would take care of the problem because then it's its own street, which you can have 40 lots coming off of. Looks like it's on street, doesn't it? No, that's a shared driveway. That's not a street. In talking with John, if we're talking about changing the ordinance to remove the under no condition, maximum 40 lots on single dead-end roadway, we can bring this back at another time and talk about the whole aspect of it, the variances, and just the whole package deal. The houses aren't going anywhere. They're still gonna be there. They're still gonna want to buy their stuff. So we can talk about it after that. What I think will be a minor change to the ordinance if we can get everybody to agree. So I guess what I'm looking for, one thing you have to take care of the motion on the floor right now, but also if you could direct planning to take a look at that under no circumstance verbiage in that portion of the ordinance, I think that would help us out and then wave our feet so we can re-hear it at later date. What? Go ahead, sir. No, I'm saying that I don't believe the motion

[2:27:27] makes any difference because we can re-hear it because we'll be under a different set of regulations to re-hear it, isn't that? That's right. Yeah, if it's denied today, the motion's gonna be like a new plan. Okay. What if we just name that Kalichi limestone road that goes all the way to the back? Let's name it Smith Road, or let's name it. Let's make it a road. That way you've got two roads going into the subdivision, and you've changed everything. It's legal, then. It's a drive away. Well, then you can. Well, it may be a drive away, but every street started as a driveway, probably. So now it comes off of Landers Road. That makes that a street. That's Landers B Road. I think the county does. So we have two streets doing through the subdivision. I think the county has requirements on that as well. I think the county you'll have requirements on those road new road development. Well, we're not following the county requirements anyway, because the county probably approved this. And we're changing it 10 years after they approved it. This is on ATJ. So all the decisions that are made on this land division are with the council or with the planning commission. I just change that and make that a road. We make that a road. Everything goes away, because then you can do it. If we make that a road, we're either talking about a private road or a dedicated public road. And that's a whole different set of situations and requirements according to the subject of regulations. If this was outside the ETJ, normally the county would want us to do that, to call it a private road, and then address the four houses off of the private road. But we're not dealing with the county. I mean, this is all the city's decision because it's within the city limits. And it's not even in the city limits? Oh, it's way out. That's what it's me. It's not even in the city limits. The county approved it, and yet we're setting here struggling over under no circumstance. These ETJ subdivisions are always exciting to say the least. Yeah. Mayor we do have the proponent that's okay at this point we move forward even if it is tonight you can bring it back wave fees and it allows us to bring that ordinance back. That's what I'm hearing

[2:29:31] from you at this point that you would be okay with that correct. At this time I believe the owner would rather go ahead and postpone it like I said they're not going anywhere. I would believe we'd rather postpone it, come back under a new set of regulations, let the planning commission hear all this first, and see what their take on it is, then if they deny it and we need to appeal it, y'all can hear it again. But really from what I'm hearing from Teresa, until that minor change gets made to the ordinance, we're kind of dead in the water. I don't understand. I mean, I've asked that it go back to the planning and let them look at it because they were told last time they couldn't even consider it didn't yeah so what what do we do and I mean I don't do we we uphold the denial and then we can start all over again is that what it is that's correct what if we don't uphold the denial if you don't uphold the denial if it went back to the planning Commission it's still going to be the same plot under the same rules we're talking about today so changing the ordinance doesn't make a difference for it the only way for the new ordinance to apply to this proposed flat is for it to start over. You rock or see an action right here. That's all it is. It's just another hurdle we're making our citizens jump over and for no reason. Those four houses are already there. They're not going anywhere. This is nothing but bookkeeping. That's all it is. It's making the ordinance reasonable and fair and common sense and we're we're not doing it. Okay, you got a motion that we uphold the denial and that will bring it back and we can look at it again. It may not come back here. That will allow us to bring the ordinance back to change that language. And then it can go to Planning Commission so they can look at it without that under no circumstance. Get rid of all the fees. Yes. We can waive the fees. And then we can look at all of the, they can look at all of the variances that are requested and not just this one. Would you, would you word a motion and see if Marty and Harry will accept it? Yeah. I think it's fine the way it is. All we have to do today is to deny the fees. doesn't say anything about the fees being waived.

[2:31:31] Well, that's something that we can do administratively. It's also something we can do in a motion so that it's in the record, too. Yeah, if I add it to the motion in Harry's seconds, can we vote on it? I would like for Theresa to give you the motion. Everything she has just said that will protect the landowner. And if y'all then will accept it, then we'll vote on it. That's what I'd like. I think so. And you can do it two ways. you could continue with the motion you have, and then direct staff to waive the planning fees and bring back the ordinance. I think that's the cleanest way, just to direct staff after this motion is voted on. But if you want it to be part of the motion, then you would say- Just direct staff. Motion to uphold the denial, and to, for staff to waive the fees, and for staff to work on bringing the ordinance back for city councils review. I like that better, Lang. You know, at first before I realized that there were already four residents on there, I was thinking this is going to be partial new development on at least three of them with. But this makes a lot more sense. You're right. They're not going anywhere. Like you said, it's bookkeeping. It's bookkeeping. It's all it is. And like I said, if this was a vacant lot, and they were divided into four tracks, for one thing, I wouldn't represent them. But it would be a total of different situations somebody did bring that before you and if this were in the city of San Angelo on 50 by 100 lots there would be 25 or 30 homes in that section where there's four or the next one where there's one I'm in my motion to read the way you stated and so if we vote on this to deny this then it's going to come back and we can work this out with ordinances the ordinance part will come back to you for sure what would be the best whether or not the real I might come back for this one. Any other public comment on this item before we vote? Okay, the motion

[2:33:37] is to uphold the denial. Direct planning to waive the fees and to look at this ordinance for correction and bring it back. As discussed as discussed. Y'all happy with that? You happy with that. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed nay? Okay. Thank you Herb. Number E is to adopt a resolution to certify local funding in support of the City of San Angelo-Chadburn Street corridor improvements grant applications to the Texas Department of Transportation's call for projects under the Transportation Alternative Set-aside Program project requires your own. I was shorter except they're like two three and four so you know this is we're bringing to you today as an opportunity as many of you are aware with the street projects going on one of those that was being considered was Chadburn when staff started looking at that we chose to put a group together and discuss was there an opportunity for us to look at something made more involved and more meaningful than just repaving the street on Chadburn downtown and so we looked at that we've talked a lot about improving our pedestrian ways downtown creating that character that we're looking for that encourages people and businesses to be there so when we did that the group agreed that there might be an opportunity at the same time a text dot had released a request for funding in one of their transportation alternative suicide programs, which allows us to try and leverage grant dollars against some funding we have. So what's before you today is to look at the corridor basically from Houston Hart on the north end and going all

[2:35:38] the way to Washington on the south end, which would encompass all of our tiers area and our cultural district on the Chadburn corridor. In doing that, we have met with both CoCTC and the tears boards to look at their opinions on this opportunity. They wholeheartedly bought into the concept as you'll see in a minute, but also the tears board was really looking toward moving toward a project to getting something going versus just planning all the time. So this gives an opportunity for a direct project. In this, you'll notice that what we're before you asking today is to sort of piggyback on streets. They have been working with half an associates for some design work on the street component. We would like, excuse me, we would like to move forward with trying to turn in a grant application to the state. There's a very narrow window. In your background, you'll see there's a projection of a schedule. And basically that grant application has to be turned in by May 22nd. For us to do that, we would want to hold some public input meetings to build upon a conceptual design that already sort of exists, but to build upon that. So in addition to the design work, which I will say that half has a good background in that as far as the design of the projects, looking at that, then they would also have to do cost estimates. They would also do our grant application as well, so the planning, the grant applications, the public meetings, and the cost estimates, all getting that done before the May deadline. So in looking at that COSEDC supported that concept, so did the tears board. They both agreed

[2:37:39] to fund half of that cost each. The cost for that initial phase is 79,000. Now after that, If we're awarded the grants and we can come up with the dollars we need for reconstruction, we'll be bringing that back to you before we actually submit the grant. And then if we are awarded all those things, then we'll have to do some detailed design work. That detailed design work is yet to be decided who would do that, whether half would do that or half would do it, and we would have local groups who assist them with that, that would be decided at a later time. So I'm here to answer questions. I'll just kind of hit that in a nutshell. But before you are four items, so one is the actual resolution just saying you support us moving forward with applying for the grant with TextOT. Know that if you approve that today, you're authorizing us with the following items to go ahead and hire getting this initial phase done. Before we submit the grant, on May 22nd, we'll come back to you at the meeting before that under old business, and we will be presenting to you exactly what phases we would propose to do now. I don't think we'll be able to cover this entire corridor in one application based on what the state is telling us. So this may be broken into a couple. We'll come back to you with that exact detail based on the cost estimates that we received and a plan for where those dollars would come from. You will notice that we're proposing in the background information that there's a variety of funding sources, MPO is one of those with their tier two funding. We have that on the agenda coming up. This is the year they're able to actually allocate 25% of some of those funds. So we're gonna be requesting that as a project. Tears funding is an option. There's storm water, street reconstruction dollars, grants in CoCDC. I will point out that with the grant application, And you have to start construction within three years after you're awarded.

[2:39:42] So if we're awarded this grant, we have three years to actually start construction. That, of course, corresponds well with some of the things that MPO may be looking at, in that we wouldn't actually start construction until probably 2020. So this is an example of one of those projects where you want to have your plan in place, and when those opportunities present themselves, then we can move forward on trying to leverage city dollars with grant dollars so regardless if we do all of this project all at once we do it in phases we need to have our plan in place so we're ready to move on grant opportunities when they arise so I'll shut up and let y'all ask questions so you need you need four votes on this Rick or do you need the first two do you need three and four what do you what we'll move on all four of them as I see it the the first being just the resolution saying yes you support us moving forward with this grant grant application. The second one being the agreement with half, so we will enter into that agreement to get to do this first phase of the conceptual design work and application for us. And the three and four are both the resolutions of support, basically saying where the funding for that is coming from, half from Costa DC and half from tears. So we need to do this in four votes, or I need to read two, three, and four, and do it in one. You can do it in one if it's anticipated that you're going to have a unanimous decision, if there's going to be any dissenting votes on any of them, you need to take them one. Why don't we just do it in one, I'm gonna have to read them anyway, why don't we just do them one at a time, they're all tied together and being. We haven't had a unanimous vote today. Yeah, you would think with five levels, we'd get a few. But on this project we're in. Yeah, this is a good project. This is a great project. Yeah, this is a wonderful project. I think you could make a motion to approve all four of them. We approve all four of them. Okay. Let me read two, three, and four. Authorizing the management of your trade and executive contract with half-associates incorporated

[2:41:44] in some of the $79,000 professional services related to phase A of the project, which includes public engagement, conceptual design, plus cost estimates and the preparation, and some mental assistance of the TA-citizen programs application to text art number three. of the Resilations City, St. Angel of Public Corporation is the support of the city's application for a Texas Department of Transportation alternative set-aside program grant to improve Chadford Street Court's mobility for non-motorized users and allocated up to and not to exceed 100,000 for such purposes. And number four, approval of the resolution of a tax increment reinvestment zone in support of the city's application for a Texas Department of Transportation alternative set-aside program grant to improve Chadford Street Court's mobility for non-motorized users is navigating up to $50,000 in tears funds. So the purpose is, that's got it. It's going to be a public comment. Any questions from council? All in favor of E, sorry, Brenda, come ahead. One public comment, I think it's a terrific project. And I think the city staff has done a great job of leveraging all the potential persons and funds and areas. I don't think there's anything as exciting as this. It's come along and really been able to create is Chad Berncorder, I think it's wonderful. You're saying giddy up. Giddy up. Any other public comment on this item? Who's seconded? Who made it? Well, thanks. Marty and Harry. My left wing's doing most of the work today. Do you know what I'm saying? If there's no further public comment, are there any other questions from councils? Council, is council familiar with this? Are you happy with it? Anything else need to be asked? All in favor of adopting item number E, items 1, 2, 3, and 4 as presented, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay? Aye. And there's our unanimous. There's our unanimous vote. Yeah. Yeah. Let me put my plug in. With that approval, you'll notice in your schedule the preliminary input meeting and

[2:43:45] open house, which they say is critical for that date is March 20th. So everybody put that on your calendar, even the public, we'll be having, you'll see more information coming out about that, but you're probably going to have this first meeting March 20th, which is coming up pretty quick. So. Appreciate your work on this, Rick. This is a wonderful deal. can make it work and get this grant money, we can do what we need to do. Out of math is consider awarding or if P number ESO417 2016 waterline improvement project to MNC Fonseca construction company in the amount of $1,012,521 and 75 cents and authorizing the city manager does it need to execute all related documents. Russell, your own sir. All right, thank you, council. Yes, just to start off, this is just our annual, water line improvement project and just to kind of give you a brief overview of the project we have four areas of town where we'll be replacing water mains first is kind of over here by City Council or City Council City Hall the second one is in the Santa Rita area on McKinsey Drive the third area here is is across from HEB on Sherwood Way and Hardin Road, connecting two lines there. And then finally, this section here down to the south is actually a portion of one of our water mains crossing late NAS worthy that we'll be replacing. The majority of this project will be replaced by open, standard, open cut trench methods, very similar to what this picture has here. Approximately 4,400 feet of that. And then another portion primarily around the HEB, Arden Road area will be installing these water mains by a trenchless method, which is by boring directional drilling. It's much less invasive, but it's also about twice as more expensive to do that.

[2:45:46] But we have to do that because of it's in text out right of way and things of that nature. We received two proposals on this project. one from MC Fonseca out of Granite Schill's Texas for $12,521 and one from Darnell Construction of San Angelo, Texas for $1,128,112. MC Fonseca was a little bitter by $115, almost $116,000 which is an approximate 11% difference. Our selection committee did do several background checks on M.C., all were good. They did provide, you know, we do require a minimum of five for every contractor and they provided all of that. Everybody was good with the work that they provided. They were very timely, no change orders, things of that nature very accommodating. So with that, we're recommending to move forward with M.C., M.C., for M.C., for of the year 2016, 2017 Waterline Improvement Project. Hi, President. I have approved that we as presented. Well, I've got some questions, okay? I'd like to know how many dollars worth of personal property taxes FC MC Fonseca has paid in San Angelo, Texas in the last two years. I'd like to know how many dollars worth the property taxes MC Fonseca has paid in the last two years. And I would like to know how many millions of dollars MC Fonseca has spent in the last two years developing undeveloped property, putting fences around it, building buildings, and paving. Because Darnell has spent several million dollars in the last two years developing undeveloped property. Darnell pays a tremendous amount of personal property taxes

[2:47:47] on every bit of his equipment in San Angelo and Tom Green County. And he also pays property taxes in San Angelo and Tom Green County. I'd like to know how much Fonseca has paid in San Angelo as opposed to Darnell. And yet we're giving this to an out-of-town company, and the man that's just spent millions and millions of dollars in our city is being denied. And I don't like it. Let me make a comment. this group up here five plus plus Charlotte is charged with making the best use of citizens tax dollars and if we've got a hundred and sixteen thousand dollars that we're trying to save the citizens then we need to do it even if it goes to an out-of-town company I agree with you Harry I move we approve you have a motion and a second that we allow MC Fonseca to do this job over our own people in San Angelo that are spending millions of dollars in our city. That's about the way I can put it or a hundred and fifteen thousand eleven percent difference. There is a motion and there is a second we will deal with it. Do I have any public comment on this? Yes, Mayor Steve Hampton, I believe you're correct and your opinion. I believe that if we went back and did like we do with the, when we give away our free money, give them tax breaks and considerations of that nature that maybe they could bring down their price, resubmit at a lower price, but they are here. They pay high taxes. We thump that many times. And yet, and then we have to then we go

[2:49:51] around them and go outside and bring in new people. So I think you have our good opinion. And I imagine their personal property taxes exceeded this hundred and fifteen thousand dollars in our county the last year. If I was just guessing, you have a motion on the floor to have any other public comment. Most of the men made the week sept MC fun second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay nay so put a four one on that one please out of number g is discussion regarding amending city policy to support low-income housing tax credit project citywide and not limit projects the neighborhoods targeted for revitalization Marty this is yours Bobby you got something for us good morning at the last council meeting many of you request the changes at the low for the low-income housing tax credit program policy basically to make it more make the program more accessible to developers. We looked at the policy, and staff's proposing three changes. I think I got it right here. The first change is recommended we move the application deadline from October to December. The timeline will still allow for public forums in January, which is really important to get the citizen input before it comes to council. Number two, that would be to eliminate the need for a project to be in one of our targeted neighborhoods. This allows projects to be located citywide and provides more opportunity for site selection, like the lake or other places around the city. Valle, you come to mind, it's a buffer farms, yes. And number three would be to require developers to contact the appropriate council member just more of a heads-up to let you know that it's coming to your district so you can look at it

[2:51:52] ask questions those kind of things before we vet the application they were basically asking for councils direction to apply these changes to the policy are you satisfied Marty I don't know how many hours you spent on making these three corrections but the hours are well worth it the time spent and I move approval. I second it. Do it second from Lucy and I like it it's not this one's not necessarily an action item it's to direct them to make these changes. If you come back to you come back to you and consider gender for approval. Thank you. Thank you Bob. And Bob gets the award for the shortest time at the podium. And I appreciate that. You're welcome. Grab your snickers, Bob. You need the snickers. It's because it's the last item on the agenda. Do we have anything in closed session, boss? We do, man. We need about 30 minutes. Executive session under the provision to govern the Code Title 5, Open Government Safety Subtitle A, Open Government Chapter 5-5-1, Open Meeting Subchapter D, Accept the requirements of meetings to be open. Under the following sections, 6-5-5-1-0-7-1-1-8 consult with the attorney with the governmental body, seeks its advice if it's turning by pending or contemplating a litigation regarding No. 1-2-13, seal-coating program contract No. 2, temple to construction, and cooperating at No. 3, L-C, and cooperated. No. 4, spielman contract B, Section 5-5-1-0-7-2 deliberations about real property regarding No. 1, the forward ranch, No. 2, fairgrounds, Colosseum, it's 11-51, what do you think? 30 minutes back about 1230 to conclude this we're in executive for I will call this meeting back to order We are now to item number eight follow up and administrative issues number eight is consider items discussed in executive closed session if needed We Discussed nothing that needs to be brought forward. There's nothing for action. So that one is is no

[2:53:54] Item number B is announcement, consideration of future agenda items. I'll start with you, Lane. I have nothing at this time, but I would like to add if it's okay, speaking on what Harry was talking about earlier for future agenda pertaining to the shelter list underneath the bridge on Bryant. We've formed a committee and we are currently addressing this. It's going to take some time, But we're looking at the current ordinances right now we have no say because that is state property So that is something that we are going to have to be looking at along with finding resources and placement for the The current residents out there Well, let's see I have nothing Mary Marty I have nothing now we're now to item number nine move with your second all in favor say aye all right 1225 this meeting is over

Transcribed 2026-07-26 with faster-whisper (base.en) · source: youtube.com/watch?v=eljrDJ9ncy8