San Angelo City Council 11-15-16

[0:00:03] Good morning. It is 834. So we're only four minutes late, starting this meeting. Welcome to the meeting of the San Angeles City Council and it's good to see as many citizens out this morning. I'm glad you're here to participate in the government of our city. I think it's very important. We will begin this morning with prayer and since our prayer ear did not confirm, I have drafted Brian Kendrick. So Brian, you have the spot. If you would, please rise as you're right. Morning, let's pray. If you're heavenly Father, Lord, as we come through this time of political turmoil in our nation, Lord, in this time of division, Lord, we pray that you would teach us to live by the greatest two commandments that your son taught us. Lord, to love you with all of our heart, all of our strength, and all of our mind. And Lord, to love our neighbors as ourself and Lord let us also pray for our leaders as we are this morning local state federal all of our leaders Lord that they would make wise decisions and that they would govern us fairly and and just with wisdom we thank you Lord for all of this in Jesus name amen and to allow me to assist in the Pledge this morning. I have five students from St. Angel Christian Academy, Alisa Smith, Joshua Smith, Brooke Estrada, Shiloh Deloitte, and Tate Miller. Would y'all please come forward? What a good looking group of kids. I'm glad y'all are here today. Are you ready? Let's say the Pledge to the United States of America and to the

[0:02:07] we do have some recognitions and proclamations this morning first we've got some recognitions for some of the city people that made the 20 under 40 Morgan and Todd are you here missing Todd Cove I am very very proud of these three people Morgan check with our council member Lane and then Todd sets on our coast of DC board the recognition said the city of San Angelo budget budget manager Morgan check with and it's been honored by the San Angelo standard times is one of its 20 under 40 young leaders for 2015 this recognition stands from from her tireless proficiency managing the city's $350 million budget while also championing homeless pets, her colleagues' good health and the outreach of her church home. We on the City Council have long known Morgan's professional acumen. She possesses a seemingly encyclopedical recall of budget facts and figure and an ironclad commitment to see that every public dollar is put to maximum use. Her contributions have led to the city's finance department

[0:04:08] winning nine straight budget awards from the Government Finance Officers Association and five financial transparency awards from the state comptroller. Morgan also cares deeply about others. She chairs the city's working on wellness committee, which helps city employees improve her health and fitness. Through a myriad of creative programming, she and her husband, Jason, and the San Angelo police officer have fostered about 30 unwanted dogs in their household until the pets could find forever home. So, Jake Widdens have also devoted to Glenn Meadows Baptist Church, giving their time-talented treasures to ministries that helped their neighbors. Therefore, Dwayne Morris and Mayor of the City of St. Angelo on behalf of the City Council do hereby recognize and applaud Morgan Chegwooden for her achievements and positive determination to make a difference in our community. St. Angelo Councilman Lane Carter has been honored by the St. Angelo Standard Times as one of its 20-40 young leaders for 2015 and this recognition come over the hills of Lane's election to the City Council but after a young lifetime of of hard work and success, a San Angelo native and an Angelo State University double graduate, laying one election to this body in July by knocking on some five thousand doors, the Liberty Packling, as many blocks as he could each evening before sunlight gave way. Any one election, by intently listening to voters concerns and earnestly assuring he'd do what he could to address them. The same sort of hustle and desire to help others helped him as a team to grow into a healthy long-service business that eventually serves 70 clients and his ambition led him to invest in rent homes. Unafraid of hard work, he performs most of the remodeling work himself. His service to others continues in the Shannon surgery centers where he works as an operating room nurse. Lane is described leadership as seeing a problem and running toward it. He also considers himself not to be a politician or one seeking votes for the problem solver, one who is seeking solutions. Therefore, I do Wayne Morrison, mayor of the City of San Angelo on behalf of the City Council to hereby recognize and applaud Lane Carter

[0:06:08] for his achievements and the positive determination to make a difference in our community. I just want to thank all those that nominated me and to thank the city for pouring into me and making me the leader I am today and I'm grateful for all the opportunities that have come my way. Thank you. I also want to say just how great of an honor it is to be recognized as one of the 20 chosen for under 40 and I want to thank David and Kim Dallin and my stepdad Tim really from nominating me and I hope this can show an inspiration for people my age and generation to get out there and get involved with their city government, politics in general, just to get out there and get active in it. Thank you. Let me read this one from Todd Coles. Todd's not with us here but I'm very proud of this guy too. Todd Coles, a member of the Board of Directors of the City of San Angelo Development Corporation has been honored by the San Angelo Standard Times as one of its 20 under 40 young young leaders for 215 in dishonor, reflects his drive and building a successful small business while serving his community through numerous charitable efforts. A graduate gemologist taught a printist with his uncle as he earned his degree and today owns cold diamonds and designs, a diamond jewelry business that could not have had a more humble beginning. Todd began his business with a cell phone, his children's laptop, a thrift store debt, and two refurbished jewelry cases. it recently expanded its operation in the Cactus Hotel. Typically, Todd volunteers for a number of non-profit agents. He helps oversee the gate operations at the St. Angelo Stock Show in rodeo and serves on the premium sale committee. He teaches a pre-kindergarten Sunday school class and assists with the bus ministry of Southland Baptist. As he serves on five local boards, the YMCA, the Better Business Bureau, downtown St. Angelouin, helping hands in the coast of DC, as a member of the latter, Todd helps oversee the Heston sales tax

[0:08:08] for economic development, looking to grow jobs that will lead to a better life for St. Angelo and to hold him. Therefore, Ida Wayne Morrison, mayor of the city of St. Angelo on behalf of the city council, do hereby recognize and applaud Todd Coles for his achievement and positive determination to make a difference in our community. And I will personally see that Todd gets this recognition. Thank y'all. Lee Flugger, make your way to the front, please sir. You, my friend, you bet. 2016 marks the 25th anniversary, 23rd anniversary of the annual City of St. Angelo Consul Christmas celebration. This celebration, with over three million lights, is one of the largest Christmas lighting events in the state of Texas. The event offers a two-and-one half-mile walking or driving tour beginning with the main post office on the corner of Abe Street and 1st Street, and ending at El Paso de Santa Angela. Those involved consist of hundreds of volunteers, including inmates from the Department of Corrections, who To assist with installation of Christmas scenes, a San Angel Restaurant Association, who supply food to the inmates and the RSVP volunteers who deliver the inmates food. The Community Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony will be held Saturday, December 3rd, 2016 at 5-15 PM on the corner of South Chadburn and West Conchow activities will include the San Angelou Community Band, conducted by Dr. Constance Kelly of Angelo State and the Twin Mountain Tones were erected by Mark Clark. Community tree lighting will be followed by the 15th annual, a lot of Christmas

[0:10:09] parade at 6 p.m. which may be viewed on 2nd street between Oaks and Chadburn on Chadburn between 2nd and Concho and on Concho between Chadburn and Oaks. On Oaks, back to 2nd. The tour of lights can be seen Sunday through Thursday from 6 to 10 p.m. and each Friday and Saturday from 6 p.m. to 12 midnight. December 2nd through December 31st 2016. Now therefore I, Dwayne Morrison the mayor of the city of San Angelo on behalf of the city council to hear Body Clear Saturday, December the 3rd, 2016, is Conch Hill Christmas Celebration Day, and congratulate the man that may work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I want to thank Council for all your support. In 23 years, the recognition of about 450, we have about 450 community volunteers that make this thing happen every year. And it's through their dedication hard work that we're able to share with the community the wonderful season of Christmas. Appreciate if y'all all come out and celebrate with us. And we have another group of adoptee foster parents and adopted parents. Please come forward and let me read this place. It's good to have you all this morning. Well, all young people deserve a safe place to live and grow and each year more Texas children find a forever home thanks to adopted families. In Tom Green County, there are 270 children in foster care and 70 of these children are still

[0:12:13] waiting for a family and a place to call home. During the month of November, we, the City of St. Angelo, recognized these adoptive families and thanked them for opening their lives to children in need of a safe home. For the past 16 years, adoption day, health in November has made the dreams come true of hundreds of Tom Green County children and parents by working with the courts to finalize adoptions and find permanent homes for children in foster care. Adoption Day is a local and a national observance in which courts and communities across the nation come together to complete the adoption of children in foster care and to celebrate the families who adopt. Now, therefore, I, Duane Morrison, Mayor of the City of St. Angelo, takes us on behalf of the City Council adhered by a declared Friday, November 18, 2016 as National Adoption Day. And called on all citizens to remember the children and the families who have joined their lives together through the Miracle of Adoption to open their hearts and their minds to the idea of the opening of their own home to these children in need and congratulate the new families to be formed on November the 18th during the Tom Green County Adoption Day ceremony. Thank you so much, here it is. You have the microphone. Thank you, Mayor Morrison and the council. My name is Valerie Robbins, I'm with Hall Protective Services. I'm the Conservatorship Program Director, and this is our adoption team and we are very happy to be here today to receive this proclamation in recognition of National Adoption Day. National Adoption Day as the proclamation said is a day set aside by communities across our country to really honor the families who choose children to open their hearts and to children and achieve permanency through adoption and it's just a a really great day for us to join those families and celebrate the true gift that adoption is. So we thank you very much.

[0:14:13] Let's get a peek. Let's stand next to the mayor. And now, it is the time in our agenda where we allow for public comment. City of City of San Angelo, you do not have to sign up. You're not vetted before, but if you've got any comment that you want to make to the city council Well, anything that is not on the agenda, this is your opportunity to come to the front. Let me read the legalities. Items or issues or items that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time. Citizens should speak from the podium again by stating their name and limit more marks to less than five minutes. Council members may request that the discussed item be placed on a future agenda. The council takes public comments on all regular agenda items during the discussion of those items. If there is anything that you wish to approach the city council about, any comments, any complaints, any requests, is your opportunity. But I ask you to form a line at the front, please. Good morning. Good

[0:16:13] morning, Bob Salas. They've been family services. I want to announce that we'll be hosting a public meeting next week right here, six o'clock, to provide information on a couple of low income housing tax credit projects that will be competing for funding, and I invite everyone to attend. Thank you. Bob, what's the time and date on that? It is next Tuesday, 22nd, at six o'clock, right here. Okay, very good. Thanks. Thank you, Bob. Anyone else care to approach the council? Well, you've had the opportunity. I'm gonna call a halt for this part of the agenda. Next, we go to the consent agenda, and this is the time where we go through the council, and we let each of the council members, if they have anything that they wish to state, any, anything they need to talk about or to mention. And also if they wish to pull anything off of the consent and take it to the irregular agenda, this is the time we do that. I will begin with you, Ms. Farmer. I don't have anything to pull off of the consent agenda. Just want to clarify some town hall meetings for folks out in my district or to anyone who wants to attend. The first week in December, the date has not been set just yet, but the first week in December is a town hall meeting with reference to STRs. And then the first week in January is a meeting that I will be holding with reference to Drexel Street and Glen, and there's Glen out in the bluffs. So that's the difference. It's split out in two different months and the dates will be forthcoming. Thank you. Lane, did you have any thanks? Nothing to pull but two comments. I'm gonna be having a town hall meeting for the Santa Rita area. It's going to be next Monday at the Santa Rita Elementary cafeteria at 6 p.m. And it's going to be over crime prevention in light of the recent burglaries and break-ins in that area.

[0:18:13] So if anybody has any questions, they can contact me. And the second, it is sure good to see Ms. Catrowalt back here after recovering from being ill. Please, Lucy. I have nothing to pull. But I still want to say what I said the last time and that was Go Cats. And they're still rolling, aren't they? El Paso Franklin, Hills Bus Saw when it came down here. Harry, what do you have, sir? Nothing to pull, but I'd like to remind everybody that Christmas Roll Fort Concho is the first weekend in December. That's the second, third, and fourth in conjunction with Christmas Concho that you just heard about with Lee Flugger and all the celebration of lights. And I also want to say that Thanksgiving is next week The citizens of this community have a lot to be thankful for, so I hope that you celebrate with friends and family and thank the good Lord that you live in a great city like St. Angelo. Mr. Barty. I have nothing. Mr. Beal. Okay. I'd like to pull E. E. Any comments, sir? Oh, and why? Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, I've read up on this. Well, we'll get to it in just a minute. get the consent approved. One note that we do have and I don't think it will be an issue I think will be through before 12 o'clock. But if we are not through at 12 o'clock we will stop at 12 o'clock because we will have a special joint meeting with the tiers tax increment reinvestment zone board. So don't look for a problem there but if so we get 12 o'clock we're not through we're going to break it soon. I want to know if I can come to Harry's house for Thanksgiving dinner because I've got I've got 72 to feed Thanks. Okay. Thank you, buddy Bring the gravy or something All right, I will I will

[0:20:16] Ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda that will be items a through J with the exception of e May I have a motion to approve bill may I have a second second Lucy do have a motion to approve and I do have a second to approve the consent with the exception of E. Any further council discussion on this? Do I have public comment on this item? Then we'll call for the vote. All in favor please say aye. Opposed nay. Out of me. Consider awarding F. S. O 2 1 7. Infrared as fault maintenance equipment to K. A. S. I. Infrared in an out of $182,710 budgeted in FY17 for the purchase of two units and authorizing the city manager or designate to execute any related documents. What do you have on that bill? Oh, I've read up on this infrared asphalt maintenance equipment and I think it's a fantastic buy for the city and if we can have a better explanation for the public on one of those so they can appreciate what it's going to do for the city. Sure, yeah, I believe you're absolutely right. My name's Ryan Kramer, Superintendent Fleet Services. The infrared asphalt maintenance aspect of where our road repair is moving, I believe, is definitely the way of the future. It actually allows us to seam our patches, potholes, where we don't have, in essence, just a mix that's put into a hole and pack down. We heat that entire area, rake it smooth so that it actually is a seamless repair impervious to water or other issues like that. So it really is a wonderful idea, some great technology, and we're very privileged to have a part in it. I would like to add as well that we've been budgeting about $1.1 million per year to outsource the patchwork. What this equipment allows is in the future, we'll be doing this in-house.

[0:22:17] So we're looking at years down the road that we would have savings of up to about $500,000 a year. So this is really an opportunity for us to move forward, to start doing a lot of this work in-house as well. And we do have the means to do it. We just need the equipment at this point. Well, my dad that in the late 80s, we sold all of our equipment, our road equipment, and we started privatizing. And we have found in the last several years that this is not the most economic way to do it. So for the last two to three years, I guess, three or four years, the council has been putting money back. And we're trying to buy some of this equipment and get back into this business as much as we can. And it will be a great savings to the citizen and we're gonna get a good product. So I commend you my friend. I think this is a wonderful idea. I will ask for a motion to approve. Motion to approve as a second. Second. Second. Second. From Lane, any other questions or comments from the council? You didn't expect that, did you, Kramer? Right. I asked me one more time. Did you didn't expect that, did you? No, sir. I was happy to get a compliment occasionally, isn't it? And do I have public comment on this item before we vote? I will call for the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say nay? Motion passes unanimously. Regular agenda item number seven item number eight, discussion and direction on feedback received from the waste collection survey and public forums regarding possible changes to waste collection services by the Kelton your own sir. Morning Council back again with you this morning discuss waste collection want to start off by. There we go. Just briefly going to top go back over and just kind of hit the highlights of last time don't want to read all this to you but just hit the highlights to let you know where we were and as we move forward.

[0:24:18] So just highlights, we sent out a trash survey, we, out of the 30,000 that we put in everybody's utility bill statement, got $29.93 back, and then all the other areas that we advertised in. Quickly, the first question, would you be in favor of supporting an increase in the price in order to change the type of service? Yes, $154, $28.39. Question two, this was a more open question. I don't want to go through all of these and read all the numbers. Well, I'll kind of move through them kind of slowly. Y'all can kind of refresh your memories on these, but a wide open question, what kind of changes in service would you like to see? And we had 1,182 of those that didn't want any change. And then you can see the remainder of those responses and kind of how we went through and broke those out. Again, we held two forums as well during this time period and receive feedback from the citizens that showed up. This feedback from our first form that we held, again, don't want to read through all of them, but again, let's all just refresh your memories as we move forward. And our second trash form on September 20th as well, more feedback from the citizens during this as well. You can tell that a lot of these, there's some repeats across all of them, but again, just looking through the feedback as we go. All right, now moving forward, I want to break this kind of down into three different categories. I want to talk about waste collection.

[0:26:18] I want to talk about bulk collection, and I want to talk about recycling services. And so we're going to kind of break all of these suggestions and comments down that we received from the citizens. Kind of break them down into those three categories. There's going to be a couple of things that citizens suggested that aren't on here. There's a couple of things like say, household hazardous waste collection. Those are things that we don't have in our contract, won't have in our contract because those items are illegal to put in our landfill. So it's not something that we can collect. It's something that we have to hold separately. And staff is working with safe recycling in a separate effort to do those type of things. Also, something the suggestion would like open market for waste collection, things like that. Those, that's not just a simple amendment to a contract. Those that has huge legal ramifications to them. And so that's not, we can discuss those in a separate time if somebody would like to. But that's, it's not really about an amendment to an existing contract, that goes into something totally different. So we didn't bring those top items into this as well. So we're going to talk about the things. We want to get your feedback and talk about the things and the issues that we can affect and we can change or amend possibly within this existing contract. So with that going forward, we can talk about waste collection and the items that we received from citizens on waste collection. One alley service was one of them, two times per week waste collection. Additional carts for no charge. Smaller carts and rotating schedules for service days. Those are the main highlights and the main issues that we received from citizen feedback. And so I kind of want to go through and give feedback from y'all. I want to hear from y'all what y'all would like, questions from me, things that you'd like for me answer for you and what and get your feelings and feedback on the on these items so with that all may or I'll let you all kind of take the helm and lead me

[0:28:20] through this. When we first talked about this back in June I guess is when this thing first came up the primary thing that we were talking about is if we wanted to go to every other week recycle with an additional can at no charge if if people needed it to recycle, and then going to a bulk pick up every month, and it would be done on the same day so that people could get rid of the items that they had, and also get rid of the lawn waste. And I think that is the primary call that I've been receiving, is that people have just sacks and sacks and sacks of lawn waste. And when you've got that wet, mosquito-laden lawn waste, to me this is a public problem. So the questions that we were dealing with back then was that we would go to every other week on a recycle and then one day a week on a specific day back there, their trash day. I think what we were talking about, we would pick up anything and everything that they threw out. Now that's what we were visiting about back in June and I think it was in July that it was all pulled and postponed and we went to this. I'm perfectly satisfied to go to a system like that and Republic was not going to charge just anymore and it was going to be something that we could do and it would get rid of the biggest problem we've got and still have in our city with all of this long waste. So that would probably be the main thing that I was concerned about. No additional money and by the survey I do not want to do anything that's going to cost anybody any more money. I think that is said. I don't think the citizens want to pay anymore. So my biggest concern would be either go to every other week recycled and go to once a month book pickup or leave it just like like it is. And according to the survey, I think that's what the citizen's saying, Harry. One of the things I, ball pickup, I think is generally the biggest issue with citizens. Some citizens, excuse me, some cities use a call-in system. You still get the four ball

[0:30:21] pickups a year, but you call in to Republic and between you and Republic, you set the day that you're going to set that stuff out and that's the day that they're going to come and pick it up. I'd like to see whether that's an option for us. You know, from my perspective, I probably don't use bulk pickup but maybe once a year. So I don't need to go to once a month. You know, the bottom line is that I have more recycling than I do trash. So if we decided to go that way, I certainly would have to have two cans. Any other comments? Council? Got it? Shane, I'd like for you to remind me one more time why, since we have such a large area out in my district, almost all of Southland and the Southwest portion of town, their homes were built with rear entries, which is paved alleys and the trash in the back. Why can we not have alley pickup at homes where the driveways face the alley and the alleys that are paid? Remind me again. I'm not sure I quite understand the question, but I mean the main, as we were looking at and we were setting services from an automated system collection service, most of those services are always out in the street because that's the easiest place for the trucks to maneuver, it's the easiest place for the trucks to dump continuously and they don't have to fight backyard fences or overhead power lines and a lot of utilities that we see in alleyways. The one, the major factor that we looked at, especially in your areas, the most populated with the rear facing garages and rear entry homes is that in most cases, you know, that when you look at it across the country, most people either store their cans, either in the garage or right

[0:32:25] next to the garage and utilize their garage to carry the trash and service their trash out of their homes from their garage, especially if that's where they come in and out of their homes on a regular basis. So that was the thought process in keeping that service in the alleys, instead of taking it to the streets, was so that they would have this rear storage and rear access to their... Well, I understand that. And mine's picked up in the alley. I feel like I'm very lucky, but that has the rear entry off, but there are still some areas between a knickerbocker and say southwest boulevard that have to still place the cans out in the street even though they have rare entries to their homes and I don't know why. So if that's just an isolated case, we'll get together later and discuss that. But then my special concern as I had mentioned to you is sunset. that is such a fast street and have trash cans on that street, it to me is just not safe. And I just would like an explanation so that I can easily explain from Knickerbocker, all the way to Sherwood Way on Sunset, why those cans have to go on the street if they have the rear entry tracharyts. We would have to look at that specifically to see exactly which I'm not familiar with those homes. I do know that we do have special circumstances in different areas where we have the majority of homes in a certain area that have front facing garages with the occasional one in two rear entry garages, especially on the corners, that are kind of a different situation, odd situations that they've had to, Republicans had to work with those individuals and those citizens for set out places and things like that. Sunset, I guess it depends on which area of

[0:34:26] sunset you're in. I know there's the town homes and areas and then we do have rear-facing garages in certain areas of that. And I did not realize that they were on sunset. The rear-facing garages were setting out on the curb. So I know some of the town homes and some of those are, but I didn't realize that. Well, we'll look at those separately, maybe after the meeting, but I agree with the mayor. It seems like the majority of the folks want us to leave it alone if we could increase the bulk pickup in some way, some fashion. And I know with tearing down my vegetable garden on all of the still producing tomatoes and okra that the green, you know, I bagged them and put them out there and there's too many for the cans. Republic has been wonderful to pick up the bag as long as it's bagged and they they picked up the extra bags and I'm very appreciative of that but there are lots of folks who have a big yard and a number of black bags like the mayor's saying the mosquito vectoring that it's just unbelievable we do need additional pickup during what I say is seasonal pick up, seasonal pick up. Other than that, leave it alone. I don't have to agree with the switch out between the every other week recycling in the bulk with the bulk picked up in the alleys. We don't want any don't set out that on the front yard to where everybody can see what you're throwing away. A lot of that's a lot of people are complaining that they have to look at it especially if If we have that week time frame Monday through Friday on that pick up, you don't know which way, what day they're going to be coming to pick it up so it could be out there all week. And also, I'm going to have to voice from my district that the Friday pick up is probably one of the biggest hassles, especially if people are going out of town and they don't get their trash picked up till later in the day.

[0:36:27] That leaves their trash cans out all week in long or they have to have someone to come and get the trash cans and put it up so people don't know that that house is vacant for the weekend could lead to some some crime in the area if we could look at for the areas that have those alleyway pickups already if it would be beneficial and wouldn't hurt anything to switch those out to where all of the trash cans that are being picked up on Friday are on that in the alley and put up already. Not like a big red flag that people are out of town. But I would agree that a best switch out between the bulk every month, every other week, recycling, that also raises the concern that there's 18 different pickup times. So if we can, this is going to have to go back for the pricing, because a lot of people will be concerned. Well, is the Republic making more off of that, or are we going to be paying more for that? So that's just something we're going to have to look at when we have actual figures in front of us. Christine. Christine, I was, like before, I wanted to, if possible, if we could get the book picked up in the alley, like Lane was saying, yeah, it makes it clear that your neighbor, or two, three houses down may look like. Also, the fact that I would like to see the fact that you have a date or a date in the week that you know they're coming for everything on that date. That's what I would like as far as the book and the recycling to every other week is fine with me. Harry, you spoke and how about you, Mark? Did you have anything to say? No. Yeah, I too would like to see, I would like to see a monthly pickup for the bulk and everybody's not going to put up the bulk, you know, but it's going to be random when different houses put up the bulk pickup and they need to pick up.

[0:38:42] And also for some people the recycle I can handle every second week for some people they would probably need two cans and I believe they could get the second can free charge wasn't it? And also, it's my opinion in looking at the flyer that came out about the trash cans and the graphic that it's on top of that recycled can, those cans are not supposed to be in the street. They're supposed to be rolled out to the curb from the lawn and set on the lawn, not on the street. If you look at that graphic, you can see the car wheels and you can see the the curb behind the car wheels and you can see that that can is set on the lawn. It's not in the street and I think the the the carts in the street cause cause of danger. I know they yesterday was our trash day and on our street two vehicles cannot pass when those safely one has to pull over and stop in order to drive on the street safely and And also, we are in the school zone and early in the morning and in the afternoon we have parents taking their children to Glenmore Elementary and at those times traffic can get quite congested because they're cutting through, you know, driving through the neighborhood to get to the school. and also I believe like as first for the trash cans being on the lawn and not on the street mine my reading of the contract is that they are supposed to be on the lawn that's my opinion thank you yes sir and we can handle from from the placement of

[0:40:42] the carts and that issue that's we can Republic will pick them up based on the contract either on top of the curb or on the street either one just as long as as I can reach it from whether it's placed in the street or on the curb is more of an enforcement issue and a code issue from the city standpoint and we can address that through code enforcement or in enforcement measures and through the code of ordinances from that standpoint to have them placed on the street. If that's the direction of council. I put lying on the lawn and to me it seems to be easier for them to pick it up on the lawn than off the street because the way that machine is set up, it's the level of the lawn just seems to be easier for them to grapple the can and pick it up and put it back on the line. I do have one question. If we did go to this once a month bulk pick up, can they pick it up in the alley? I mean, they're gonna have to use a different type of truck, so it wouldn't be the mechanical truck. So can they pick it up in the alley? Can they pick the bulk pick up that one day in the alley? And I guess that's a question for Republic. That's, and well, there's a couple of issues. There's a couple of things that we need to talk about in regards to that, can it be picked up in the alley? Yes, it can. Is it, will they lose some efficiencies by doing that? Yes, if somebody's sitting out bulking or just putting out one or two bags of leaves or a yard waste or things like that, that is something that they could possibly get from there, looking at it from their operational standpoint, that their driver on their automated truck could step out, pick those up, throw them in the quadro. And I can't pronounce the can that's in the front of the truck. But they could pick that up. And they gained some efficiencies by keeping it out in front of the house, especially when it's just one or two bags. Now, when you start looking at the larger items, like we're going to start setting couches, and we're going to start setting your refrigerators

[0:42:42] and that type of product out there, or washer drives, whatever, that type of product out there in the front, granted it looks bad. but two people you know when we start talking about smaller alleys will start blocking alleys with that type of product as well too and then that's also putting trucks down our alleys again and that will increase the city's maintenance from the alleys standpoint as well so there are there's given takes both ways we realize that from a from a visual aspect of it that it's not as attractive, but there's also issues with going back into the alley as well too. We're also, and I think when I'm hearing, you know, I'm getting, you know, that everybody's kind of locking the monthly bulk pickup, and from that it is going to be on a set day. So I mean, if that standpoint, it is on a set day, so it won't have to sit in the front yard for a whole week. It's going to sit out there, you know, you can just put it out that day, they will come and get it that day because it will be a set day at that point. Instead of the, it can be picked up from Monday, anytime through Friday, it's going to be if your set day for bulk collection is on Tuesday, you can set it out Monday night, you know Tuesday morning it's going to be picked up, so or Tuesday it's going to be picked up. So I think some of those concerns will go away in that aspect of it too. Go to the alley. Will there be an increased call? It's, yes, sure it's possible. Now, again, there's been no sit-down formal talks about this, but they have gone through, kind of looked at these options and kind of shot some ballpark numbers at us for these standalone services. Each one of these items is kind of standalone services, and they did put a small price increase for bulk collection in alleys. Well, I'm sorry.

[0:44:44] Then it's my opinion that as far as what republic can do for us where the customer and then our taxpayers are our customers and it's I guess it boils down to what what have you done for me lately and that's my opinion and I I personally will probably vote against it unless this bulk pickup is done monthly and it's put in the and it's put in the alleys regardless if it's only one day. I wanted us to realize that we do not want any type of increase on our trash pickup regardless which way you go or what you're going to do. I would prefer that there would not be an increase whatsoever, not for our seats. Very confused. I think one of the questions I have, and you just brought it up, Shane, from a historical standpoint, can you pull numbers to see what our maintenance was on Allie's prior to this latest trash contract two, three years ago, four years ago, however long it was with? I'd be interested to know how much money the city was spending on Allie maintenance when the trash trucks we're going up and down the alleys as opposed to picking it up the way we are today. Because again, I'll go back and say what's been said and I said at the last council meeting. I'm not interested in making a change in this contract that's going to impact the citizens in an adverse way or the city. If there's an increase in cost, I don't want to change it. I don't have the exact numbers right now. We can put pen to paper and get those numbers. I know that I had a minimum of six men in working in alleys constantly prior to. That's all they did every day,

[0:46:45] that they showed up for work, is go to an alley and work in it. And with the equipment that goes in it, sometimes we actually put more men than that on the alleys trying to catch up from time to time. It's when you start, especially like a season that we had this year where we have as much rainfalls as we've had this year, and you start having those large trucks run up down those alleys, it really causes a lot of issues in damages, especially in those un-improved alleys, where they're just running basically on native soils and or even some improved alleys where you do have some road-based material that it just causes a lot of issues in those alleys. And so it was a constant battle in the alleys when we had the trucks running up and down the alleys. So again, there's trade-offs one way or the other. There's not, the right answer is up to y'all and what the citizens want. And so, and with that, we will sit down and we will make those- In down sales tax year, we need to put those resources out there, those citizens dollars out there for better use than going back and maintaining alleys. Bill? Okay. I have a collegiality and I don't think we ever really have any problems. I think a year before last or something like that, they put a new better cliche on it. And I've lived there for 15 years and that's the only time I can remember any maintenance in that alleyway. And I cannot see a justification for an increase in cost if we go to twice a week for pickup because that's less trucks running, and if we have once a month pick up, it's still less trucks on the running, that's the running and less employees that they have out there. Are we, you're talking about going to every other week recycling service in turn for the Yeah, well, if they pick up the recycled material twice a month, that cuts in half the number

[0:48:58] of trips that they're having to make. Oh, it's like there would be a credit. And we can get into numbers, but when we start talking about bulk collection versus automated collection times we talk about service times and talking about mechanical arms or a mechanical device picking up those buckets and dumping them. The cycle times versus that versus manually loading up to five cubic yards of material whether that's a couch or refrigerator or 25 sacks of leaf material. There's different, it's not the same process and it's not. as I think we need to see the numbers. Okay, they wouldn't be burning as much fuel and it wouldn't be as much maintenance on their trucks. And they would be paying less hours. I mean, that's not how that works, but okay. I agree, we're gonna have to see some numbers, but whatever we do, the citizens aren't gonna like it if we increase the cost at all. And if they're, I mean, I think we should be pushing for a credit like Marty said. Another one more thing that I have, if a citizen would like a smaller dumpster, could they have a smaller container? Right, that's six to two, three eighths. We would have to work with them on container size in which containers are available and for what service. There's a lot of citizens out there that are too small to handle a fully loaded dumpster that can tip over on them and can enter them severely. I believe that that's definitely doable. Again, we would need to sit down with Republican and talk about actual container size, which containers to use versus the others, and again, get more feedback to allow for that. But that's definitely a doable situation.

[0:51:01] Got it? I definitely do not want to sit up here and assume that I know what it costs Republic to man a truck, or the type truck, or the gasoline that they use for bulk pickup. Because that's a different breed of cat than the normal pickup. I'm sorry I've got a tremendous amount of statics, so I'm going to have to do this without those. But anyway, I don't want to assume what Republic's cost is. So, yes, I would like to see some numbers and what it would cost to change out. I mean, I know that we, you know, from a republic standpoint, we've visited this before that some of those numbers are their numbers. I mean, they're private to them. They're not going to show us and they're trying to think term off the head again right now. Right. I mean, they're basically their numbers. I mean, but we can sit down and we can break it out as to, you know, cycle times for automated trucks versus the number of employees And all those things, because when you start talking about bulk service and going from a monthly bulk service, they're going to have to add more trucks and more employees, because employees are the only ones that can pick that stuff off the ground and throw it in the truck. So at that point in time, so there's gives and takes and there's trade offs there, and so we can sit down and we can run through those numbers, and we can kind of bring those type numbers to you. But as far as their actual costs, those are proprietary numbers, and I found it, yep, came back to me proprietary numbers and they're not going to be willing to share those with us, but we can break those. We can break numbers down into cycle times in number of employees and number of vehicles and things like that for you. Daniel? Mayor, Council members, it's very clear that at this point we definitely want to make sure that we address bulk. We're hearing the message loud and clear that there should not be an increase in cost. We also understand that we'll look at different variations, whether we look at complete alley picker for bulk, we'll definitely take a look at what it costs to do on a monthly

[0:53:04] basis and also on a call-in basis for that four times a year. So we'll look at different variations and come up with some costs associated with that. Again, we've got the message loud and clear, you don't want to increase what's web. So we'll look at that and see what we can do. But again, we get the message loud and clear, the biggest deal right now really that we can address is the bulk and how do we handle that and we can come back with I think something that would satisfy all of you. I guess from that question, is a call-in service more a call-in service? I've kind of heard both. I've heard people say that they definitely want it on a 12-month schedule, and I've heard people say that a call-in service would be fine as well, too. Is there any preference, one way or the other? As long as, I think as long as the citizen knows exactly which day that that ball pickup is going to occur, then I think most citizens can live with the fact is, if we make the decision to go to a monthly type situation, if they know which day of the month that's gonna happen, I think they're satisfied. What they're not happy about is just putting that stuff out on Monday and by Friday, it still hasn't been picked up and now code compliance comes by and says, hey, you got all this junk out in front of your house. So let's get to a spot where the citizen knows Exactly which day whether it's call in or whether it's once a month. I don't I don't think it makes that much difference I think simply what I was saying was other cities use the call-in method My perspective as I said, I probably don't use ball pickup once a year So there are people that use it on a more regular basis And if we make that decision if this council makes that decision to go to once a month I can support that as long as the citizen knows which day which day it is okay very good I think it's easy for the citizens to realize that if the truck is coming twice a month for

[0:55:09] the recycle rather than four times a month, that they're not burning as much fuel and they have less maintenance and that's twice a month that they don't have that employee out there. And they're only increasing the bulk pickup. The truck is out there with the employees 12 times a month instead of four and still that's net decrease in the amount of time that they're burning fuel and have to maintain their trucks. I don't care if we leave it like it is. I think it's working perfectly for me. I don't have a problem on the way it is. I do think we need a once if people if and there's a lot of citizens of this city. It doesn't affect me Because when I cut my grass, it stays right where the Lord expected it to be where I cut it down But if people pick their trash up and want to have it haul to the dump, then maybe they need the service I would be in favor of a once a month book pickup or I could be in favor of leaving it just exactly like it is But I think you've got your direction. I think and if I'm seeing the consensus right I think we could I think we probably by consensus could say once a month book pick up other Pacific day, so we know we don't have stuff set now. I think we could also be say by consensus. We don't want to pay any more money. And with those two things, bring us back something so that we can vote on this and get this put behind us. I am tired of talking trash. We talked two and a half years. And that's how long this contract's been in effect. So did I say that correctly. Very good. Please bring it back with a solution. In Republic, you going to work with us on this? They said they were. We will sit down with them, and we'll bring something back to you. OK. Thank you. Thank you. All right, item number B is considered approval in public hearing of the 215 Consolidated Annual Performance

[0:57:09] and Evaluation Report, Caper. Bob Silas, your own, sir. Good morning. The Caper is an annual HUD requirement. It's due at the end of December, and it does cover the past program year, which is October the 1st, 2015 to October of September 30, 2016. The report outlines expenditures, identifies accomplishments, and it addresses some key interest items. It's pretty comprehensive, and it covers a variety of issues such as resources that are available, housing programs for special needs, and local barriers to affordable housing just name a few. Here's a little snapshot of the funds for the year. We received a little over 706,000 in CGBG funds and 269,000 in home funds and we expanded a little over 782,000 in CGBG and at 387 in home funds and please note that expenditures do include the prior year funds. Here's a list of our accomplishments for the year, Galilee CDC constructed four new homes. We completed 62 emergency repairs, completed 55 rehabs, which included our annual neighborhood blitz and helping enhance rehab program that assists elderly homeowners. We assisted 23 first-time home buyers with down payment and closing costs, provided rental assistance to 26 special needs needs, the clients, and then we funded one code officer that worked over 2,700 cases in our neighborhoods that we targeted for revitalization. And in our non-federal grant accomplishments, we conducted weatherization and water heater

[0:59:18] replacement for 22 homes through the ADMA's program. we did provide a gap financing for six brand new homes through the half cent cell stacks, and then we worked through 19 cases of indigent cremation for the county. We did advertise through the ads in the newspaper and our website, and we provided copies for the citizens throughout the city, as you can see here in this slide, and we're asking council to approve it so we can forward it to hide for their approval. I don't have a problem with it. You've been, you've been very forth right with us in the six or eight, ten years you've been doing this. I don't have a problem on. Do I have any counsel? I move to approve as presented. Do I have a motion to approve as presented? I do have a second. Do I have any questions from counsel on this? Daniel? Mayor, I just want to congratulate Bob and his staff again, as you looked at, as far as the goals that they had established, they actually surpass those goals and their actuals. So I do want to thank them for the hard work that they're doing and keep going at about Appreciate you I'll pass on to the staff do I have public comment on this item before we vote Do you have a motion to approve as presented? I do have a second all in favor, please say aye any opposed nay Put a unanimous vote on that with mr. Kendrick Item never see his first reading in public hearing of an ordinance approving a request for the following allery right of alley right of way abandonments A. Two 10 foot wide alleys within block A and B of the JP home's resubdivision consisting of approximately 1,912 square feet and B. A 20 foot wide alley in the south of one half of block C, Bayes edition of the blown subdivision consisting of approximately 7,898 square feet generally located north of Upton Street, east of North Bay Street, south of X Street and west of the Texas specific rail road line. John James you had the floor sir. Thank you. John James Director Planning and Development Services. As you mentioned this is an

[1:01:21] alley abandonment you can see here and as you'll see on some of the pictures upcoming this is really effectively one lot. This property owner is using the lot you can see that there even buildings built across alleys there but you can see these hatched areas are all currently platted alleys and so this proposal is to abandon those alleys so that they can legally incorporate all of that land into one lot. Just another view of this again you can see that some of those alleys have encroachments already. I should point out that there are no constructed alleys on the ground they're just platted property line alleys but no no use as a of actual alley. You can see that better here on this picture. No alleys ever constructed throughout this site. A couple of pictures. Again, this is all incorporated into one site. Staff does recommend approval with some standard conditions. The planning condition also recommended approval. The conditions, again, we have a policy of how alley abandiments occur. There's a fee for that. They have to verify the abandonment through a quick claim deed as well as repladding the property into one big lot to basically legally affect the abandoned. Would that be happen to answer any questions? Mr. Thomas, this is in your area. Take it, please sir. You bet, quite honestly, there's no way in the world I would vote against this because it's right in the middle of this property. So I move to approve as presented with the conditions. You have a second from Lane Carter to accept this as presented. Do you have further council questions or comments on this item? public comment on this item. We'll call for the vote. All in favor of accepting this as it is presented. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Put a 7-0 on that Mr. Brian. Item number D is the first public first reading in public hearing for case PD1605 an ordinance approving a request for rezoning from the general

[1:03:22] commercial CG zoning district to the plan development PD zoning district for our construction yard with an office shop and outdoor storage generally located along the northeast side of the South Chadburn Street approximately 588 feet northwest of Texas Farm to Market Road 765 on approximately 8.140 acres. John you are on sir. Thank you. This may look a little familiar you've you've seen this site before. Maybe the wrong app over there but this is the actual correct location on South Chadburn. This has come before you a couple of times in the past and as we continue to work back and forth with the property owner they've expanded what they want to do on the property. They're also they constructed a fence that wasn't in compliance with our standards and so all of that is some of the reasons that this is coming to you today hopefully to clean it up for good and allow all of the uses they want to do on the property. It also basically allows the fence as it's as it's constructed. You can see that this is zoned general commercial. You did approve a special use almost a year ago. This is the proposed site plan. They've even identified some locations for future buildings, but as you'll note in your packet, they've identified these shaded areas for outdoor storage. The original special use that was approved had more substantial limits on the outdoor storage they could do and as we talked through this with them we've expanded that to accommodate the additional outdoor storage that they wanted in those areas. You can see here that normally in this zoning and general commercial zoning a fence has to be either set back 25 feet or it can only be four feet in height and you can see they've done that here they've set the fence back 25 feet but here at the corners they

[1:05:23] veered up and then up to the property line and so that six foot fence is is basically too close to the property line not fitting within our fencing standards. Again this PD is is worded in a way that would allow them to keep that fence it also does require them to extend that fence along the front of the property but it gives them some time to do that. Pictures you can see that existing fence that was constructed right here, and as well as across the front of the property there. There are some uses on the property. They let another business use the property, as you can see, all of this activity is related to road construction. That's not actually authorized in the general commercial zoning on that site, but as the PD was written to allow that to continue through the end of the year, that road project will be done, they'll move it off the site, and it will no longer be there. I won't read each of these, it's in your background information, but these are all the conditions of approval, addressing the fence, the outdoor storage, and some other limitations on the storage of outdoor materials like gravel and dirt and sand, and some additional limitations on storage of hazardous materials and how they need to store oils and those sorts of things. I mentioned the unauthorized use as being removed by January 1st. and agreement with that. The use is identified in the plan development district or all of these uses again working with them. Hopefully we've identified everything they want to do on the property but also applied some limits as you as you know if you remember from the aerial photo there are some large lot residential homes not too far from here and when this came to you before some of the concerns were from those neighbors with not too much industrial top activity happening on this property. So we think this PD is a balance of allowing them to

[1:07:25] do most of what they want to do on the property but protecting those nearby neighbors. We did send out our notices received one in favor none in opposition. Staff does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission but answer any questions. Bill this is your area take it away sir. Okay. I was contacted by the owner. What would I take? What's the advantages over the planned development over concerned the general general commercial? Well, the general commercial district would not allow, well too far, would not allow many of these uses. In general commercial, outdoor storage is more limited than what they want to do on the property. Some of the other things that they would do storage of materials would not be allowed in general commercial. That's probably the primary thing that was the reason for the plan development. Now much of that was accommodated in the special use that was approved last year, but the other piece of this is, as I mentioned, they built that fence in violation of our fencing standards. They did seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow that fence to remain. zoning board denied that request and therefore the PD also would accommodate that fence and not have them tear out the fence and rebuild it, which could not be done through the General Commercial Zoning as well. Okay. The owners in agreement, what is proposed? Yes. We've met with them a number of times and at least my understanding is that this allows everything that they want to do on that property. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. to approve as presented and I'm going to second that but I'd like to make a comment it this is the location is that go past the Southgate on Chadburn and with a curve

[1:09:26] just right there at the curve is on the left that's that's correct because I've been out there and turned around in the driveway and I don't know that I have not talked to the owners or anything like that but I want to commend them have any of you been up there? That is one of the nicest construction yards and well organized and is an A-plus for the city and I second the emotion to approve whatever is needed for these folks. Eric, just a real quick comment. First of all, I want to thank the staff for working with this particular owner for this because this is if memory served me correctly this is the third or fourth time in the last two years that this property has come before the Planning commission in the council. So, when I had a conversation with the owner, what I said to him is, why are we coming back so many times? He said he thought that this was well, was done now so that he would not have to be, he'd be back at any other time. But I also think that this is probably a good deal. Well, I'll just say that Darnell has been in business settlement north into town. I've known David for a long time and he's always kept a good yard, he's always kept a neat yard and I don't have one problem with this, I have nothing to praise for him. David, are you satisfied with this? David satisfied with it and you're satisfied with it and I've got a motion and a second to say we are satisfied with it, I guess. Public comment further? Further comments from Council? I do just want to add, I really believe that all construction, commercial construction yard should have the same set up for trucks his trucks to get off the street to get out of traffic to not cause any kind of accident it's just it's an excellent layout and thank you mr. Donnell and now you're setting standards you know now I will call for the

[1:11:26] boat all in favor to accept this as presented please say aye any opposed nay let's put a seven on that one as well. Alright, E is the first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Text Amendment to Chapter 12, Exhibit A is Owning Ordinance for Intermodal Containers. John James. And before I get into the details of this, I'll just note Rebecca's handing out a revised version of the ordinance. The ordinance that was in your memo was correct. In the actual adopting ordinance there the definition section was left out and so this corrects that but the the actual definition information was in the packet the ordinance just inadvertently had dropped that piece everything else stays the same correct and so this is one other point about that this is the actual ordinance as recommended and adopted by or recommended by the planning Commission. So basically, I'm going to go through some of this fairly quickly. There's a few different pieces to this, but basically this is talking about intermodal containers, which you may know as shipping containers, shipping crates, sea containers. The official term that the industry uses is intermodal container, and so that's the term we've used in our proposed ordinance. It does create a new section, creates definitions for these terms, and then designates the zoning districts where these would be allowed as well as requiring some standards for their use and placement. So this is the example of what we're talking about these kinds of containers. I want to talk briefly about this picture because one clarification I want to make is this regulation applies to the use of these as storage containers, storage buildings basically on a site. This site, for example, is where an owner of these sells them or displays them for sale or rent. So, these restrictions would not apply to a site like this where they're basically just

[1:13:27] outdoor storage of these containers rather than being used effectively as a storage building on a site. So, in summary, these are the three different classifications that we've set, a different set of rules for each of these. These containers would be prohibited in residential office, the Central Business District, historic zones, the River Corridor, and on vacant sites. So in those areas, these containers would not be allowed at all. And I should have said residential except ranch in a state, and I'll get to that in a minute. They would be allowed with few restrictions in manufacturing and heavy commercial districts. So you're more industrial type areas. These would be allowed with very few restrictions. And then they would be allowed but with more restrictions in most commercial top areas. So here's just another example of these and one of the reasons I wanted to point this one out is this is on a vacant property, so this would not be allowed in that location. But also you can see that it's really too close to the property lines. One of the things you'll notice in the proposed ordinance is that it requires some setback from the street so that those don't get pushed right up to the street. another example of these lined up in a row in a parking lot and so these are the restrictions that would apply throughout in all districts. Building permit would be required. That's no change from today. That's already a requirement. You couldn't stack the containers. We haven't seen that but we have seen it in other cities where folks like to stack these on top of each other. They must be screened from view of the street with a landscaping fence or with landscaping or a fence or a wall a question for you all is should this be in all districts as this is worded as recommended by the planning commission that screening is required in all districts not just the commercial districts but also the industrial and I have a picture that can explain that a little bit it must meet the building setbacks for a principal building and then the maximum size is 450 square feet which does accommodate all of the standard sizes of these but

[1:15:33] So here's an example of an industrial top site, and you can see a couple of containers there, but those aren't screened. And so that's one question for you all is, in an industrial area, are we okay with this where we have lots of outdoor storage already? Or should they have to screen these from public view? Just another example, again, a more industrial-type area, should those require screening. Now, so these are the areas now where we require higher standard for these. These would be the neighborhood commercial, general commercial, and general heavy commercial CGCH. On sites with smaller buildings, less than 25,000 square feet, you could only place one of these containers. On larger sites with larger buildings, you could get up to three containers. would not allow any signage on the containers, no banners, no painting of basically using these as a billboard. They would have to be painted over with the exception of just incidental labeling. And they also would have to be painted again in just these districts would have to be either a neutral or earth tone color or painted to match the principal building on the side. So just some photos of some in those areas where they would have to meet these higher standards. Can you see There's some containers that would, you know, there's no signage on those. Here's an example, Academy. These containers are sort of similar to the Academy blue color, and so those would be allowed, but you couldn't have a brightly colored or one that didn't match, otherwise it would have to be an earth tone. Here's an example, and I think to me, this is a good example of what the ordinance is trying to prevent is in a very nice, attractive, well done retail area, and then they bring in a container and just basically plop it in front of the building

[1:17:34] between the building and the street right in the front parking lot area. So under the ordinance, this would have to be either moved back behind the building or screened from view of the streets. Here's an example, and this is an example of one, you almost can't see it because it is exactly same color as the building. That's a good example of that. Again, however, in this particular district, in a retail area, that would have to be screened from view of the street. And then we have some standards for ranch in a state. This is something that one of the issues that prompted us to bring this ordinance to you in the first place is that our code enforcement folks went out to issue notices of violation for a number of sites that we had received complaints on for these containers being used in the backyards of the ranch and estate. And under our current ordinance though that would not be allowed. And so what this ordinance would do would allow one container on sites in ranch and estate up to five acres and again just for clarification if an owner owns multiple adjacent properties we would treat that as one site. So if the total adds up to more than five acres they would be okay. It must be located to the rear. So in an ranch and estate area, you couldn't put this in front of your home, and again the same kinds of restrictions on no signage and painting of the container. And so all of that that I just said all relates to the permanent placement of these containers, if you want to put it on your side and leave it there indefinitely. We also have some rules in place for temporary use of these containers. The first one is something we already have, that's allowing them related construction. So if I get a building permit for a site I can bring on these containers to store my construction materials and that's no change from our existing ordinance. This would also allow these to be used for a residential site. We issue those permits in 30-day increments and so you'd be

[1:19:37] allowed two of those so basically up to 60 days but in residential areas those would be limited to the smaller containers and I have a picture of an example of one of those but for non-residential for temporary use they'd be allowed up to five containers for a maximum of 120 days but again those could be 120 days in a row or they could be split up in separate 30-day increments. There is a possibility for one extension as well. If they needed additional containers they have the option to go to the zoning board for a variance if they can show a hardship that for some reason they would need additional. This is an example of some of the smaller containers some of the more popular ones are the pods, it's a brand name, but also U-Haul has them as well, but they're the smaller size containers, so if you're moving, they can bring one of these, put it in your driveway, you load it up, and then they come take it away. Right now, that's not actually allowed under our current ordinances. This would accommodate that kind of use in a residential area. One of the discussions that the Planning Commission was a concern about the existing containers that may already be out there, so they wanted to they recommended adding this provision that existing permitted containers if you've already got one you would have it first of all you would have a year to come into compliance but you would also have the ability to come to the Planning Commission to get a conditional use approval that would allow them to continue so if you if you've had five ten of these containers on your site for the last ten years you don't want to move them you have the ability to come to the Planning Commission and they on a case-by-case basis would review those and they could either approve it, deny it, and they could make you meet some or all of the conditions of, you know, screening or placement on the side and those sorts of things. They also recommended that there be no fee for that conditional use request. Just briefly, I'm not going to read through all of these, but one of the questions that often comes up is how other cities deal with this, so I wanted to give you kind of an overview.

[1:21:40] First I'll start with the ones that are less restrictive, Odessa and Lubbock allow more containers with fewer restrictions than this proposed ordinance would. And I can come back to these if you have questions. Big spring in Midland, those are two we looked at that are very similar to what we've proposed. A little more restrictive than those first two but not terribly restrictive. Again, I'll note that this tan or beige is kind of a common requirement around to make sure that where we have these placed on a site they don't become eyesores and painting a more neutral color helps avoid that and these cities do also require screening as we've proposed. And then we looked at Abilene and Wichita Falls both more restrictive than what we've proposed significantly more restrictions especially in Wichita Falls currently does not allow these in most locations within their city although they are looking at a new ordinance. So that's kind of an overview. Staff does recommend approval and as I mentioned the Planning Commission and also recommended approval with that change regarding existing containers. One question, John, on a commercial lot, if they are painted in their at the back of a lot, they're not, truthfully, they're not in the front, they would not need to be screened. Am I correct on that or does this require screening, even if they're painted to match and at the back of a lot? It would if they're visible from the road. And now that's something that you all could tweak if they're to the rear and they're painted, if that's less of a concern, then that could be, but currently it would require. I don't see any reason to scream one, if they're painted and they fit in and they're on a commercial lot, I don't see any reason to make them scream it. I would like to take that out of it, the rest of it, I'm in agreement with you. I think it's very fair ordinance. I'm not. I've got a problem and maybe John or some of you here

[1:23:40] can explain to me what I'm understanding. let's just say Walmart because I look at the back of Walmart store and I'm in the back of the art of whatnot but I drove Saturday, drove all the commercial businesses that I could find that had containers, didn't find anything offensive but at Walmart I counted 13 containers, 13. Why do I want to go in there and aggravate a business and tell them you can only have five by city ordinance or you can only have six. That's your maximum. I'm interrupting his storage of his product that he sells to all of his customers to have on hand instead of waiting for delivery of a truck to come in. And if his volume dictates that he needs to have 12 temporary containers, that's his business, plus it's affecting the business of the person who owns the containers. Why? Or is we as a city trying to mess this up? and I'll agree with you on that. You're absolutely right. Agree was sorry. I don't understand. We need to be pro business, not anti business. There's a vacant lot between me and Walmart. I spend a lot of time on my back patio. A lot of time watching the traffic on the loop. I have no objection to looking at the back of Lowe's or the back of Walt, they've got containers. Those are some of the neatest parking lots of businesses in town. There's no trash to speak of. It's picked up, it's cleaned up. And they return all of their shipping cartons for recycling. And even that is very neat and very, I went to every Walmart in this city, every business that I could find that had a sea container Saturday. And I don't understand why we're limiting the number. I just, I've got a problem with it, unless y'all can change my mind. I'll back you up on that one. Bill, you had a question. Okay, I don't like Tanner Beach. I find out offensive, I find it born, okay? But okay, I'm not gonna support this at all

[1:25:41] because this is another instance of a government trying to dictate to business how they can run their company commercial business and these are legitimate businesses and the economy is down now. And okay, speaking of Walmart at Christmas time, they bring in those containers And they put their layaways in them. Their Christmas merchandise comes in on them. And I just think this is inconsiderate of the businesses. This is discouraging businesses to come to our city. And I am totally against the whole thing. Let me see. I don't care how many containers they might have. I would like to see them this day. You'd like to see what I didn't hear you. like Kenston, before they can't see him, it's a huge experience. A permanent. When he was saying that that building that, that mattress, the company that he has said, that would have to be moved. It would have to be moved back in the back of the back. I disagree with the screening. We're going to open up a real can of worms there. Because Walmart's and Lowe's and everyone would have to screen there. And I think the screening ought to be pulled out of the ordinance and I think that the number ought to be pulled out of the ordinance and the rest of this ordinance there's really no restriction. It's just kind of cleaned it up and giving people the authority to do and to realize and it's also giving some authority to people in our interest in the states to do something that they cannot do. I don't see it as a restrictive if we will take the screening out and take the number out. I think it's a pretty fair ordinance. I would make the recommendation and the motion that we do so with the exception of no screening and no limitation of numbers. I do like being able to control putting them in the back and being an ISOR, you're exactly correct, but

[1:27:45] I don't want to throw anything in there that restricts businesses. Or, you know, looking out at the audience and I see one of our Howard College representatives and, you know, construction or the need of extra supplies or classroom. You know, I've got to have some place to store it temporarily. I don't want to restrict their ability to do business. If this is the best, the removing the limit both on permanent and temporary. Yes. Okay. This is the best type of storage and this is the most secure you can add, Marty. I agree with temporary. I don't see the reason, if we're permitting them, I don't see the reason I'll pan for limiting them, but to say you can go in and put as many as you want in a business permanently. I can see that, I agree with that. It's temporary uses. And as far as grandfathering them, Can you go back to that? Are we talking strictly commercial? I think so. Yeah, that's right. Residential is currently not allowed, so they couldn't be legally grandfathered because they would never have been permitted in the first place. So any that are out there now are not legally permitted. And the way the Planning Commission recommended it was that only those that are currently legally permitted would have the ability to continue grandfathered. And it's only five over five acres in R&E. That's correct. They can buy additional lots to make that up, even though it's a planted separate.

[1:29:46] Yes, if they buy two, three acre lots next to each other, and it's under the same ownership, and they treat it as one whole yard, this would allow that to count as more than five acres. And one's allowed, or is there an unlimited number? Well, that was going to be one of my questions. if we were if we eliminate the well no you said if I think you heard you say that you changed the motion to only address the temporary so then the permanent numbers would still stay as I understand right so that would limit to one in ranch in the state because I've got quite a few calls out in green acres and and people basically are opposed to them being being out there period they're just unsightly. There's a way that they could get one. I don't want to make sure that they couldn't get more than one. I'm talking commercial. You're out in Green Age. That's private. That's ranch in the States or residential. I'm speaking of businesses. I don't want to affect businesses. Why shouldn't we let businesses do what they need to do? I mean, if a business needs one, why should we restrict him to one? If he needs five, why should we restrict him to one? Why wouldn't we let a business operate their business as the owner's business owner feels that it ought to be operated? That's what I don't understand. I agree because the business is, you know, good business means not going to waste money. Let's be pro business, let's not be anti business, let's take the obstacles, let's take the obstacles out and let these businesses work. They're having tough enough time out there right now. May I ask this question? Yes, sir, Harry. Do we have specific businesses in the city that commercial, that have so many of them out there, that they become a problem to adjacent property owners?

[1:31:49] No, I mean, we occasionally will get a complaint that it's usually about aesthetics, that the appearance of them in a certain area. I have to agree with what Duane's saying is we really know our business in the eye of the beholder No, just because of defense someone doesn't mean that you know the aesthetics doesn't offend everybody and I think that's going on The statics is the wrong way to go well The statics does mean something I think and and and you know So I talked to a gentleman yesterday, and I believe most of his, I forget what he said, but I'm going to call him Primer Red, and I don't think those are so offensive, but you can see them. Well, as we saw in some of those pictures, they're bright and green with white letters on them, and I don't think all businesses would be happy to have one of those sit down right side of another business. So if we're going to take them, if we're not going to limit the permanent ones, I think we need to leave the aesthetics in there. And, you know, the one gentleman I talked to, the ones he either places sales permanently or temporary, I don't know He paints more water, but I think they're aesthetically pleasing or more aesthetically pleasing, but We got one in green acres. It's on a corner out by street. That's right green with white letters. It looks Looks terrible. Yeah, you calls from everybody about it. Sometimes two or three calls. Sometimes two or three calls. Do you want to clarify your motion, please, ma'am? I was just trying to do that in my mind because I'm speaking commercial.

[1:33:49] Now, scroll back to where you had, there were three instances, okay. Prohibited, allowed with few restrictions, allowed, but with no more restrictions in commercial districts, okay, in the United States. Well, my motion was to not restrict commercial businesses for the number of containers and not to require privacy fencing. And the limit on number was for the temporary. Temporary. The permanent limit was okay. It was okay, but the temporary, that's up to the business. You know, the more containers I see there at Walmart, I'm thinking, wow, more product, they're selling lots of product, yee-haw for us. But that's my motion, I don't want to mess with them any more than that. As far as these containers, every one of these lots that have containers have two or three different colors you can choose from, so pick one that matches your surroundings, I don't see that that's a problem, but I don't think they ought to be painted to match and to blend in. I could agree with your motion, if no one else will second it, I will for the sake of the vote. If we're going to restrict these people that rent these containers or buy these containers and actually have them paint them of certain colors, why aren't we enforcing the color requirements from the trash contract on to republic?

[1:35:49] Those trash cans are all supposed to be the same color under that contract. We selected the two colors. No, we'd the contractor are supposed to be all the same color and they're not. Yes they are. Yes they are. Different services. You've got two companies and one of the other companies in the county has a blue can, but all Republicans are green for trash. I mean, green for recycle and baits for trash. No, I'm talking about the commercial dumpsters. Oh, well then I'm going to second the motion so that we can call this to a vote anyway. I think you've made a good ordinance here. I don't see that it is restricted, and I believe that the exceptions that Charlotte made in her motion takes the onerous restrictions away. I believe this is something that'll work. I like the ordinance. Do I have any future comment, blame? Clarification just for my personal opinion. We're not restricting the permanent amount on a business, commercial business, correct? Or we're restricting the permanent, not temporary. That's the way I understood it. The motion that I have written down is to approve as presented with the exception of putting a requirement on the forcing screening of the containers and the limit of temporary containers and commercial areas. Taking out the screening, taking out the limits. But make efforts to a stickily, please. And if I could add one more clarification, I wasn't sure on the discussion. Currently, these areas, the manufacturing and heavy commercial, would not require any painting or aesthetic treatment. There's no reason to mess with them. They've had them. I can second that motion.

[1:37:50] The motion does, just for extra clarification, the motion as it stands allows for the permanent restrictions to be in there as was presented. Now, why would we, well, that's another question. Why would we restrict on the temporary? I mean, if they're building. No restriction on temporary, only the restrictions that were presented on permanent. I can accept this in my second stance. I opened it up for public comment at this time. Morning Council, my name's Wesley Mckeska, on Proline Reynolds. Here in St. Angelo, we service all of St. Angelo and all of West Texas for permanent and temporary containers. I wouldn't thank John and his staff They've done a great job. This has been something that's been being done for a couple of years now. It's taken several months, and as y'all have discussed, there's temporary and permanent. There are several things that has to be worked out and so forth. I think that the change of the movement to not restrict a business as far as zone retail, your Wal-Mart, your Lowe's, your big stores, that's a great move that needs to be changed where we're not limiting them to their business. as far as temporary. That's a great move as well. I'll leave that up to y'all. I'll say a couple things because I hear a discussion about do we want to limit a business on permanent containers. And one way that could be done on that is and it has been brought up but go by your square footage. And John and him have worked on that a little bit if and I don't all the numbers, but if you have a business that's commercial, he's looking at putting a permanent container on that property, one way that you can limit it, or if you're not going to limit it, just leave it wide open, he can put as many as he wants there, that's fine too. That's a motion. Okay. And if you do, then you can work into the square footage.

[1:39:51] If they have so much square footage, so many acres, you can narrow that down and do it that way. As far as the aesthetics of the color, there's no problem there. If someone's doing a permanent, I think the neutral colors to blend it into what their surroundings are. For instance, the picture they use at Academy is a great example. It blends in with their color. It's not an eyesore. It works out well. The only thing I did want to bring up, and I may need to get John to bring it back up, the picture of the mattress store that has a great container. I'm agreements with the Councilor and John, and now that that box needs to be moved. It's aesthetically, it's blocking view, but that box is not a permanent box. It is a temporary box, but it is there for 12 months out of the year. It's considered a temporary box. It's rented. How do you divide that line of temporary or permanent? If they're renting a box for 12 months out of the year, year round, is it temporary or is it permanent? At the same time, as me as a business owner and renting a box, I could get a call today and say, we're through with the box and it's gone. But you take a customer like that and 99% of the time, it's retail customers. do they need to look at where they're putting the box is it and part of this will be on my company and some other companies are we taking a box that's going to be aesthetically pleasing to the eye of yes we take a gray we take a beige box if it's rental same thing if it's permanent but do we put a line there somewhere to create that when you have those retail businesses that are using boxes eight ten months out of the year and this is something that hasn't been brought up and hasn't been covered, but I caught that on John and M's pictures this morning on that part. So that's something that may need to be addressed as well.

[1:41:54] I think you can do that administrative to catch you, John. I thought I saw something that said in the rear, in the rear. Even temporary impermanence must be in the rear. Did I not see that, Ms. Grew? That's something you could do with when you set the things down. I mean, just tell them we have an ordinance that says these things have to be in the rear and that's where our permit and that's where we've done all I've been doing this for 18 years and specifically I'll use Academy's example they rent those boxes we could have taken four different color boxes back there but I went and visit with them where other placement is like we do all businesses and we we do that I want our city to look great too you know I'm for our city and I'm for our business and for our economy so that's something we take in consideration with the businesses too. And I'm glad to see that John in the department has worked on this because it gives me or it is not the word but gives me a card to play to say hey we have a city ordinance I can't put this box here but I can put it behind your store so that works out well you know it gives me ammo I guess you'd say in the sense. Currently the temporary do not have those same restrictions so if if if your desire is also for those temporary to be to the rear or maybe to the rear or side of the business we would have to add that in. That is my desire. That would be my second party. Temperatures have to go on the rear. Not that was the rear or the side. Or the side. Or the side just can't go on the front. But temporary is defined by timely but also correct. I'm I'm sorry. Emperor is also defined by time. Correct. Correct. Now, let me make one more clarification. We have side yards that are between the building and the street.

[1:43:55] I think to match your intent, I guess I would think the recommendation would be not be allowed between the building and the street. Would be a better way to, or would it be easier to say not to exceed setback lines to the front? Well, the concern there is, let's say, a big shopping center or even a Walmart. they're typically set back much farther than they're required to be so they could still, if we just have them meet the setback, they could still put them in their front parking lot. I would probably work one shorter. Well, the problem with temporary, if they have a big Christmas time at Walmart, then we're saying they cannot put them in the front if they exceed the size. If I understood West that there may be like 30 of them. If they put 30 of them, do they get them toward, do they end up having to put some in the front? Well Walmart's parking lots are large enough that the side can accommodate their back away from the store and they're still off the street but they're in the back half of the side. The back half of the side where you've placed them and they're they're perfect they're not as long as it's the back half. I don't think we'd need to make this more complicated than it is but he knows what he can do and should do to accommodate and if we say back or side then we give you the authority and also give them flexibility yes and to answer your question Marty D or to clarify the Walmart stores don't want containers in their front parking lot either you know because what it's going to do is if they start putting containers up there and it's going to start bringing in trucks, we've all seen it where the trucks will start using this parking lot so they reframe, that's one reason they will reframe from it. And it also creates it, they put it in their parking lot, creates more manpower, creates more labor, creates more time to get to those rather at the back of the store where they use them. So, like Ms.

[1:45:55] Palmer said, they will, some stores will bring it around to the back portion of that side lock, but they're not bringing them out into front of the lot in the parking lot. Do you have a question? Yeah, you know, what about stacking? Because I see they're at Walmart and Sherwood Way, you know, they've stacked their containers too high. And so I don't think there should be any restriction on that. I've not seen it. I don't find any stacks Saturday. I've not seen it here. had there that the Sherwood way Walmart they had that area blocked off for a while and they had containers in there and they were stuck too high and I have no objection to that. That's what the company needs. I'm not aware of anyone that has stacked containers besides myself and my company and my yard but you know even in construction zones and stuff like that now they construction in temporary day you will see some containers where they will stack merchandise or not merchandise but product going into that facility that's being constructed they'll stack stuff up on top of that but that's strictly in temporary and strictly in construction. This is temporary and I have seen them stuck. I think that's addressed in the ordinance they can go to this they can go to the zoning and ask for a variance I mean that's that's part of the ordinance so that's that's that's in there if they need to stack it. Why should they have to. I mean that's just a restriction on your business. Any further comment from the public on this? Yes sir, Steve Hampton. I appreciate your instincts. I think they've been very good pro-business. Using these containers as a form of recycling in my eyes and they've been very well and very interestingly used in some even in the residential area.

[1:47:56] I don't quite understand why it's been prohibited there, other than maybe getting too much bulk in a small area. But I've seen them used for houses, shops, barns, and they've turned out very well, and they're very well built. Another thing that we're talking about these special situations, the mattress factory over there's built on the triangle with sunset running across the back and and that I don't see how that would benefit the situation so why maybe we need to consider special exemption be free in it a little freer than maybe in most situations with the ordinances and as far as the colors if it's a bright orange or a bright green maybe we should be in order to, I know Lucy is concerned about the way things, the appearances of things. And I think most people are, I think the whole, I'd be interested to see where this came from, what originated the need in this. It was probably concerns about aesthetics as you said. And I don't see a difference between something like a container and then that other construction company who was a little too high. I think we can get too anal on some of these things and not really obtain the gold. Thank you. One more question. I think we will need some clarification on the colors. OK. Are you saying that they have to be tan and beige?

[1:49:58] You know, that was what some other cities that we looked at had. Ours is a more general neutral or earth tone color. So that allows a broader range of colors. But it would still prevent the broad orange or fluorescent yellow something like that. I don't know. I guess I have a different taste in color. Worked as a graphic artist for a long time and I appreciate color. All colors. Do I have further comment on this? I did have one question. Councilman Self, you asked the question about the ranch in a state. They would not be allowed to get the permit to continue, but they still would have the year to to come into compliance. So they would have a year to move them off the property if they already have one. Any commission that asks for a better? No, if in a ranch in a state, since they're not currently permitted, they would not have that option. They don't need a year to come into compliance. And that's why I asked, I didn't know based on your comment. I would like to see that move to 90 days. And I think 90 days is too long. I think 15 days is long enough. and we would y'all entertain on R&E amending that to 90 days? I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with it. I will amend the motion. They would say that those that are already illegally placed in R&E would have 90 days to move. Not to exceed 90 days. Okay, so I'd like to- I'd like to- I'd like to have it solve your problem on it, Marty. Yes. I'd like to clarify the motion to make sure that I have it right with the amendments. It's a motion to approve it as presented with the exception of the restriction for the screening, so there would be no restriction requiring screening of the containers.

[1:52:01] No number on the limits of temporary containers in the commercial site, and switching the restrictions from only the rear to allowing for the rear and the side of the commercial side and reducing the amount of time to come into compliance to 90 days. In the R&E? In the R&E? In the R&E from a year to 90 days. That is correct and also no restriction on member on permanence. That is the motion. No restriction on number of permanence? Yes, that was temporary. I thought it was no restriction on permanence. Well, if we start restricting permanence and we get away from what Charlie was saying. I don't it's like Mr. McKissie explained, you know, he can have a contract for 30 days 90 days or a year and they just come in and renew. And so who's to say that that's temporary or permanent? I don't see that we should be restricting either one. Yeah, that was that was my understanding and that's my second. Yes, that we do not restrict the number. We allow the businesses to make this decision. Make their decision to run their business. Instead of no number limits on temporary and in commercial, it's no number limits on containers. That's correct. Yes, that is correct. With the exception of the Still the limit of one in ranch in the state. Yes Commercial in commercial If there's no further comment, I'm gonna call for the vote All in favor, please say aye aye aye any opposed nay nay nay Put a 5-2 on that it is 10-2-7 and I gotta have 15 minutes left my back rest P. R. Lider number F, which is the first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for a text

[1:54:04] amendment to Chapter 12, Exhibit A's Owning Ordinance for Accessory Structures, John James. This is, as you mentioned, an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures, basically storage buildings, barns, those sorts of things, affecting only the ranch in the state. So all the changes we'll talk about today only affect the ranch in the state district. what we're doing is establishing uniform setbacks as you see from your packet of information the setbacks today are fairly complicated and it depends on a number of things we just simplified that to one setback it does increase the potential allowable size on some lots and as well as putting a limit on the location so as I mentioned the setbacks now will be five-yard setback for the side 10 yard or 10 foot setback for the rear accessory buildings currently are are limited to 100% of the principal structure meaning the home. So if you have a 2,000 square foot home, you can have up to 2,000 square feet of accessory buildings. We've had a couple of issues with that, zoning board of adjustment, variance requests over the last year or so. And what that actually does the way it's written now is it basically penalizes you if you have a smaller home. So if your home happens to be smaller, you can only have a smaller shop or barn. And so if your home's bigger, you can have larger. So we wanted to address that disparity. And so basically, we keep the provision that says you're limited to 100% of the principal home or a percentage of the site, whichever allows for more accessory buildings. So if you have a five acre site, but happen to have a small home, we think you should be able to get the same size shop or barn as your neighbor. So this kind of levels the playing field. Also does add a provision that accessory buildings and structures should be located to the rear of the home. So somebody in the ranch in the state,

[1:56:05] a fairly common thing in ranch in the state is that homes are pushed way back farther than the front set back would require. But what that allows is without this restriction, somebody could put their shop or barn out in front of their home. And that's something that from what we've heard talking with folks is something they don't want to see in the ranch in the state, that those shop and accessory other accessory building should be back behind the principal home. That's basically it in a nutshell. Staff does recommend approval as did the Planning Commission. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I just say move to approve as presented. Second. Well I like that you've increased but I don't understand why in R&E we have to put a restriction on the barn. I mean if you've got two or four or five acres why do we restrict the size of the barn? What's the purpose in that? I understand it on a 50 by 100 lot, but when you're dealing with with acreage, why do we restrict the barn? And I guess it's the German in me, we always built the barn first and there was anything left we built a house, but I don't understand that. It's really just allowing open space and not overwhelming the neighborhood and your neighbors by allowing somebody to build a huge monstrous building that basically dwarfs everything else in the neighborhood. I have one more question, but I think it's a question. My question is still, why do we restrict the size of the barn? Why do we restrict homeowners from doing what they want to do on their property? I don't understand that. Where did 5% come up? That's the only question I had. We just looked at that as a way that would allow quite a bit more building building on on a lot but still provides a limit to how much coverage you could put on to the lot. There wasn't a magic to it. Did you do the math on it? How big a

[1:58:10] building would it be allowed at five percent of a two acre lot? We did look at that out of the top of that I don't. Well yeah 40 just a little lower 4,560. How many? 43,560 is the land mass. So 5% of that would be 2,000 per acre. It'd be 2,178 per acre. So for two acres, it'd be four thousand square feet. Okay. Well, you've answered my question. The whole idea was to move to allow more. So if an individual has a two acre lot, he would be able to build a 4,000 square foot barn. Roughly, yes. I still have the question is why we restrict it all, but I guess that would add some. Harley? Mr. Mayor. Yes, ma'am. Most ranch and estate designations are out on the outer limits of the city. We don't have a lot within the city, but does the county have any restrictions like when they are doing subdivisions, do they work with us on stuff like this? Is there, there's not. So many areas that we need to grow and possibly consider is annexation, we're gonna end up with all of the things that we don't work with the county with, and I just thought I'd mention it. Would you, Harry, to appease the mayor, would you be opposed to raising that to 10? I can adjust my motion to raise it to 10%. Okay, and I'll second that, and I think that'd be plenty B. Okay, I'll accept that. John, do you have a concern as far as the ranch and the state is holding? Pretty much, you know, that's the primary zone that we go into. In the future, if it does change to something else,

[2:00:10] we may be faced with a huge barn, basically, in that area. Is that some of the concern that you also, what was there? Typically, I mean, they wouldn't be allowed to build an accessory structure like that without a home already on the property. And so if it comes in as vacant ranch in the state, you can't just go out onto a vacant ranch in the state and would have different limits that would apply. And that's another question. Why, if you own a vacant piece of land in an R&E, why can you not build a barn? Don't go there. well we have this we have an agenda item we have to stick with today but this may be something we need to bring back at a later date because I think that raises some questions as well you've got livestock actually today we're dealing with this actual agricultural use you know if you have a 10 acre ranch in the state property and you have livestock running out there yeah you could you could have a barn in that situation alright do I have public comment on this for the comment from the council motion been made that we accept as presented with the exception that we go from 5% of total acreage to 10% of total acreage to allow for a bigger born in an R&E all in favor please say aye. Opposed nay put a 7-0 order Brian G consider approval for the 2-7-15 health insurance premiums Lisa Good morning. Good morning Mayor, Council City Manager. As you know the city has been blessed by having three straight years where our insurance premiums have not increased for our health insurance. However in calendar year 2016 we have

[2:02:13] seen a slight increase in health claims at a rate of 2.9%. The biggest increase that we've seen, though, has been in prescription claims at about 17%. In addition to that, we've had five large stop-loss claims, which totaled $905,000 in claims. Overall right now, we have 20% large claimants that account for about 37% of our total claims. So the 20 large claimants represents about 1% of the total membership that we have. So in order to prevent any kind of increases to our monthly premiums, we were specifically looking at perhaps some plan design changes to compensate for that. These are the plan changes that we've looked at, raising our deductibles and our out-of-pocket maximums by either $150, $200, or $250. This next slide shows you a backup on it, please, ma'am. Now, you said $150, $200, and $250, but that says $250, $200, and $250, and $250, $250. Right. It's $150 down on the out-of-pocket medium plan, so all of the changes range from $150, $200, or $250. I was looking at the deductible. The deductible will be $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250, $250. Correct. I'm sorry, ma'am. That's okay. what it looks like, our 2016 plan is on the top with the deductibles in the out-of-pocket and then what it would go to with these changes for next calendar year, the deductibles in out-of-pocket by those increases that I mentioned. In addition to that, we're looking at changing our prescription plan and implementing the premier plus formulary. As you notice, the prescriptions went up by almost 17% this year, and what I've attributed that too is that we are getting healthier as a workforce and our members are healthier,

[2:04:16] but one of the reasons we're healthier is because we've identified problems and now we're taking prescriptions for them. So we have seen that increase. Under this particular formulary, the generics are going to still be the preferred drug and that there are going to be more brands in each class of prescriptions. It also adds a step therapy program where you would need to start with the prescription at the generic rate and if that, if you were unable to tolerate that, your doctor could write an exception and you could get the brand drug. In addition, there's the pre-certification for certain medications. I did not provide the list of all those medications in this PowerPoint presentation, but I did give it to you in the packet with the different drugs that would be included. And as it shows in that packet, there are 123 members out of our 1,080 people that we cover that would be affected by this change to where they would have to get those doctor slips to use the particular types of drugs. But if we do implement that, it does result in a savings to the plan of about $105,000. So what we're asking for at this point, if you recall, I came to you back when we were we were talking about the meet and confer salary increases and that there was $322,946 left in the general fund that was unallocated in this budget year. So I'm formally asking at this meeting that we use that money to offset some of the increases to our health insurance fund. Now, keeping in mind that that dollar represents the general fund only, we looked at what we would need from the non-general fund departments that would be an actual equivalent to what the general fund employees cost would be. And that would be $74,000. So we got with budget, and there is $74,000 available in those non-general fund departments

[2:06:18] that could be used to reduce this increase in premiums. Funding that we're asking for coupled with the changes that we would make to our plan, the formulary of the prescriptions and the deductible changes, we would still need to increase our premiums by 5% for this upcoming year. And keep in mind that starts January 1st. Now had we not had that funding available and if we had to put the entire amount of increase that would be necessary to cover the plan for the upcoming year on the shoulders of the employees, it would be a 33.5% increase to the premiums. If you recall, we do have an insurance review community that consists of employees as well as retirees and we met with them and went over all of this information with them and they supported our request to make this happen. One thing that the committee did want me to make sure that I express publicly is their express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the police department for for going their pay raises on October 1 and recommending that this money be used for the purposes of the insurance. So right now the city contributes $454 per member per month with the use of the funding that I identified that would bring the contribution up to $487 per month of an or an increase of $33.37 per member per month. So this is our premium structure for this current year that we're in for all employees and pre-65 retirees. There's three different plans are low, medium and high, and then we have four categories of premiums which are the employee, the employee plus spouse, the employee plus children, or

[2:08:19] the family structure. This is what it would be in 2017 with the 5% increase to all of the tiers with the exception of the employee low plan, that would go from $16.50 to $20. That's just a round number, not a percentage. So this is the slide that indicates what the increase is per tier in dollar figures. I couldn't get it all on one slide. So you can see that it ranges anywhere from $3.50 at the employee low level of an increase per month to $49.51 per month increase. I can tell you that in the high plan family coverage we don't have anybody in that category. And this next slide, one more slide after this, this is for our post-65 retirees. We raised that to coincide with the retiree and the employee levels. So it would go from $16.50 to $20 a month for the Medicare Supplement Plan that we offer. This tells you how many people would be affected by tier. These are employees that we're looking at. So there's 539 people in the low employee only coverage and you can see how it's sprinkled throughout the different tiers. And then this is how many people are affected in the retiree pre-65 group. As far as any of our other insurance goes, there are no changes to the plan or to the premiums for dental or vision this year. So those will remain the same, and should we reach an approval today, we do hope to start our open enrollment process tomorrow, and that would run through December 2nd. So our request today is to authorize us to use the unallocated money from the general

[2:10:25] fund, the 74,000 from the non-general fund, and to accept the changes to the plan and the premium increases for next year. I will move to approve as presented, but I will have to say this. I thank you and your team for limiting this to 5%. I can guarantee you this is going to be a big benefit to the employees of San Angelo. I think it just shows how much the police officers our team players and I second it. I'm glad we had the three hundred and twenty three nine hundred and some thousand dollars to put into this. Absolutely. I will tell you too. We've had some employees tell us that they had gotten, they had kept themselves in our plan, but it put their family into the exchanges and as a result of some of the increases they've already received for next year, they're coming back to our plan. Kind of surprised me that this came in where it did. I expected it to be much higher. We're very fortunate, especially over the last four years. Hopefully, if you've ever seen some of this can change, Bill. Yes, as is a common practice, and by most employees, these days, I'd like to see a penalty for tobacco users. They're voluntarily risking their health. So I would like to see a penalty for tobacco users of the financial penalty, because the burden that they are inflicting the health cost that they are inflicting on themselves, they are passing the burden on to everybody and I think they should be paying something next to her. As a penalty. That's something that we can certainly look at for next year, absolutely. We're talking about the 323 plus 74. It was roughly $400,000

[2:12:27] is what it takes to keep their premiums over the 5% increase. That's correct. Now, I honestly expected twice that much. I really did. Actually, I'd like to see that included this year. I think we're probably too late to put anything in for this year. Now, I had brought this up earlier in the year. I beg your pardon? I had brought this subject up earlier in the year. have a hard time drawing the line is for a smokers because you have those that are overweight and you have all sorts of circumstances. There's a whole lot of, you're opening up a real can of worms there. I don't think, you know, I don't think it's can of worms. Other employees do it. And tobacco use is way different than obesity or diabetes or any of these things. I mean, it brings, kind of brings something up. My employer has a health screening every year, and that includes the tobacco use and the health screening with lab draws, BMI, which is, you know, based on your hype weight, waist size. And they get discounts, we get discounts, there are insurance. But for those that don't meet those criteria, they don't get those discounts. So that could be something that we do need to look into. I'll agree with Bill. Yes, and we do the health screening, the health risk assessment as well with the BMI and the blood draws and everything. The problem was when that when wellness programs first came out, and this was probably, I don't know, five, seven years ago, something like that, as a municipal employer, we could not penalize anybody. That the law was such that we could not penalize people. we could reward those people who were healthy, but we couldn't penalize those who were not, so it would amount to a discount that we would have to give them. Right, you wouldn't have to, for those that don't meet the record.

[2:14:28] Some people wanted, they wanted us to increase the people that were unhealthy, and that was totally against the law, so the issue became really difficult to try to administer that, so now we've got three or four years behind us of these HRAs, and it was the promise that we started that with the intent to look at some way to handle this. The problem is if we give too much of a discount now, we can't sustain our fund. I mean, we're self-funded for our health insurance, and so that's where the difficulty comes. It's a very fine line as to whether or not we can maintain the budget. I was unaware we did the health screening already, okay. Right. We do have a motion and a second on the floor that we accept this as presented. Do I have any further comment from the public? of course, Steve Hampton. I have two points. I think that I think what Bill brought up is excellent and Lane confirmed that it can be done for the benefit of the whole system. Also, I have a question for Mrs. Marley with the Democratic politics changing nationwide and the a possibility that there might be a change in the health requirements, coverage requirements, known as Obama plan. With this pharmacy going up 17%, there's been a great increase there. And I think it has to do with pharmaceutical companies boosting their prices. And I was wondering if maybe in the future, we're gonna be hit with another premium increase, or would it be more likely that it'd come down because if campaign promises,

[2:16:31] if people live up to their campaign promises, there's a possibility that it might be, the requirements might change. Thank you for that question. Actually, yes, if the new administration were to make changes to the President Affordable Care Act, we could see that there would be smaller fines or fees that we have to pay to the government right now for that to go ahead. But I don't think that we would ever, I don't think we would perhaps use that as a reason to lower our premiums, because again, as I mentioned, We are self-funded, we're self-insured, and it's important for us to build up our fund balance for the years when we have catastrophic claims. So I don't know that I guess we'd have to wait and see how much of a change there would be from the administration to know whether or not we could refund any of that money. We can hope. We can sure hope. Absolutely. And I'm hoping. Yes, sir. Any further comment? Got a motion on the floor that we accept this as presented. I will call for the vote all in favor Please say aye aye and No, I can't support this without any encouragement for people to stop this tobacco use it's a 6-1 vote on that Brian Item number eight first public hearing an introduction of an ordinance amending the 216 to 17 budget for grants and capital projects 20 under 40 star Morgan jig-witten Thank y'all what I have before you today is our biggest budget amendment of the year the primary item before you today is the carryover of any fiscal year 16 capital projects that lapsed that we need to capture those funds and put them in two fiscal year 17 and so there is a detailed list of what each of those capital projects are but that's a total expense of $39,480,000 that is

[2:18:35] This is offset by some revenue, $7,116,000, and that's largely related to the auditorium project that we receive reimbursement from the arts group for that, and so that's the primary, what makes up that revenue. And then for Fire Station 4 Capital Project, we have the Medicare Supplement Reimbursement Program, and so we need to go ahead and capture that revenue and budget for it, it's $565,000. A portion of that is held back for the contract fee to do that program, but there were a The remainder will be invested in Fire Station 4 in anticipation of those construction costs that are coming up. And the last item before you is the police bulletproof best grant, a routine item from the federal government of $8,820, both in revenue and expense. And that funds about, that'll fund 50% of each best purchase. We help leverage that against general fund budget. of the total budget amendment before you is $40,054,792. You're not spending any extra money, you're just getting everything in the right pocket. Right. So it's housekeeping. Yes, sir. Overprove. Second. You have a motion to approve as presented due at a second. Questions, Council? I have a question. Well, I had a tour of the police station lately and I'd like to see, I know we can't afford it this year. year what's going on in this country I think they need an increase in their riot gear and other protection for them you know if the resident ever is a disturbance I think you know we should be preparing for it. I have public comment on this item I will call for the vote the motion is that we accept the budget amendments as presented all in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Nay. Nay. No. Okay. Nay. Nay. No. Okay. All right. It is now time to go into executive. Let me read it.

[2:20:43] Executive says you're under the provision of government code title five open government I think subtitle a open government chapter five five one open meeting sub chapter D exceptions to the requirement the meetings be open under the following sections. Number A, Section 55107118, consult with the attorney with the governmental body, seeks the advice of its attorney about pending or contemplating litigation recording number one 2013 seal coding program contract. Number two, Templeton contract construction and co-operating number three, LSA in co-operating item number B, Section 5510712, consult with the attorney with the governmental body, seeks the advice of its attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas display rules High Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the chapter regarding number one. Signing of the water rights on Ford Ranch, number two West Texas Water Partnership, and item number C, section 551072 deliberations about real property, it is 1116 AM. If we can finish this by 12, and then we have our Tears Board meeting at 12, we will be back here by... for tears about an hour so can I say we'll be back we are shooting be back here by one o'clock about twelve thirty one o'clock I mean is that John I mean twelve thirty maybe okay well if our tears meetings not until twelve and it's gonna take an hour well no that's what I'm hearing it's not gonna take an hour well it will not yeah okay so we're shooting at twelve thirty twelve thirty to one o'clock give us a range and we'll be back Let me say that, let me say that. We are now in executive. I to order the executive session is over. There is nothing to report, which is item number A, under the follow up administrative issues on our agenda. Nothing was the decisions were made and the executive was nothing that we need to go on further today. Item B is discussion of post-Ponement of water rebate reviewed to December 6, 2001, 6.

[2:22:45] Councilor, is there any problem with that? I guess there's something we need to, Morgan, what action we need to take here, ma'am? What's going on, sir, is that we're required by the water ordinance to review this every November, but it really made sense to wait until the water board met on Thursday and bring y'all a comprehensive about everything going on with the rates, the performance of the fund, water rebate altogether. And so it did make sense to talk about it separately, so we'd recommend it be postponed until the December 6th meeting. We just wanted to address it in November since the ordinance, as we show. You need consensus or you need a motion and a vote. Consensus is fine. Consensus, Lane, you have a problem? You have a problem? Lucie. Yes, sir. I don't have a problem. Any problems down here? No problem. No problem. Bring it back to December 6. Thank you, ma'am. It'll be a long way anyway. Yep. Okay. Number C is consider approving the following board nominations, civic events, board, care and Abbot SMD one to a full first term ending October two 19 Fort Concho Museum Board Lieutenant Colonel Yuki O. Kanuki number three by position the good fellow Air Force Base Commander item D is possible action related well that's all we need we've got item C those two items those two appointments to boards may I have a motion to know we're free second I do have second I'll take Lane second on that any further comment from Council public comment all in favor as presented please say aye and negative no put a 7-0 on it item D is possible action related to the City Council meeting scheduled for December 216 we want to have two or do we want to have one I would like to just have one I'm always in favor of one what does anybody else think about it it's Christmas yeah Marty one what do you What data would we have that December 6th and the other one would be December 20th Not if we only had one exactly The December 6 would be the only meeting we have in December. We would be eliminating the third one third Tuesday

[2:24:48] Okay, that sounds good. What do you think about it Harry? I'm okay with it. It just means the six is gonna be long. We're gonna be here all day long January's gonna be long Yeah, it's going to be long. It's going to be about lane. Go for it. Start it. It's fine with me. We had three or four this month. Let's eliminate the second meeting in December. We will be meeting on December the sixth, and that will be our meeting for the month of December. Everybody agree? Did you get that, Brian? OK, item E is an announcement to consideration of future agenda item. I'll start with you, Charlotte. I wanted to follow up with Mr. Thomas on his request at last council meeting, the STR decision, if you're going to ask for discussion or continuation of the moratorium is looking at and wanting to visit with the attorneys and John James about a recreational zone. That's all I had for future agendas to see if Harry was going to follow up with his what you had stated at last meeting. The item was initially going to be on the agenda, but it was asked to be pulled from the agenda that we're going to go forward with the December 6th meeting as the first reading of the short-term ordinance. Okay. Okay. That's it. Right. Nada. Thank you. Here we have the holidays because we won't meet the Marty. I'd like to just add that I met with the residents and real deal drive and Cox Road neighborhood out there and they were concerned with crime and speeding in their neighborhood and it was a great opportunity for the, they had a black party and it was a great opportunity for the

[2:26:48] the neighbors to get together and meet each other. Some of them have never met each other and just involved the whole neighborhood. And I spend about two hours talking to them and asking what their concerns are. And for me, it was a really enjoyable meeting and I think for them it was a really enjoyable meeting too and they're looking at setting up a crime stop in that neighborhood, watching that neighborhood. very good really good. I do got something. Yes. Coming up on Thanksgiving everybody might be going out of town just everybody be aware of locking their cars and their houses. Because tis the season for theft. Be where Charlotte's family's going to be in town and be an extra 70 of this. Where is your. I have nothing I will take a motion on item number 10 which is adjournment. All in favor say I already are supporting the hotel in this room, right?

Transcribed 2026-07-27 with faster-whisper (base.en) · source: youtube.com/watch?v=rt67po8A1sY