San Angelo City Council 12-6-16

[0:00:00] And it is so very good to see everyone here too for our city council meeting. I mean, the, it's been raining. It ain't no place like San Angelo, Texas. It's just good to be alive and be here. We're going to start this morning with prayer. My success, would you please come up and get us started? I would ask you to please rise as you were able. Morning, my friend. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Good morning, everybody. Let us pray. Lord God, we praise you in all your works. We thank you for the gifts of life and love and family and community. We thank you for bringing us together in this place and time. And we ask you to send your blessings upon this meeting, as our city leaders seek to do what is right and just. We ask you to give them wisdom and good judgment. And please bless all members of our city staff and their families. in this holiday season. Please bless our whole city. Give our people a spirit of cooperation and civic pride. And help us to seek constructive solutions to the challenges that we face. And to those who are going through hard times, we ask you to give them hope and perseverance. And to those who are unemployed, Help them to find dignified work to help put food on their tables. Help us all to break down barriers and to build bridges of trust. Help us to enhance the beauty and the safety of our surroundings. Bring health and well-being to your people, trusting in your providential care. We place these needs in your merciful hands for your God forever and ever.

[0:02:02] Amen. And now I would like for Mr. Curcher, Joiner, a seventh grader, and the President of the National National Honor Society to come forward, Curcher is going to lead us in our pledge this morning. Good morning. Hey, y'all, young man. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. And we appreciate all you kids here from Trenton Luther today. Glad you brought them in, boss. We do have a proclamation, our police chief and also Tracy Gonzalez who are here to accept this. It's a buckle down and stay strapped in week, December 12-19. So Tracy, public information officer, and our police chief, Frank Carter, if y'all would come to the front. Good morning. Hey, you. Hello, boss. You okay? Buckling up reduces the risk of death or serious injury from a traffic crash, and it's reduced by 50 percent. Texas and San Angelo law declares that seat belt and child safety seat use is required, and motorists can be cited for non-compliance. The individual seat belt use is vital to maintaining a high-level public safety and health. A crash can happen to anyone at any time in wearing a seat belt every trip, every time

[0:04:04] as an old-caused, highly effective safety option available to increase safety. San Angelo Police Department and its community partners understand and respect the positive impact that increasing seat belt use can have on individual families and the community. Now therefore, Mayor Dwayne Morrison to hereby proclaim the week of December 12th through 19 as buckle down and stay strapped in week in San Angelo to urge citizens to recognize the importance of daily seat belt and child safety seat use and I can tell you from personal experience if you don't wear them it costs you a hundred and sixty dollars. It's really a privilege to be here to discuss this topic which is so simple but really you know people don't think about it and we were selected back in the spring to become a part of this program which is a national campaign along with five other agencies to increase seat belt use in San Angelo and prevent some of the horrible crashes that we've watched happen especially to our teenagers in the last few years. Going into this we ran a baseline survey and we'll discuss all those numbers next week but we were really shocked to see that actually ages is 60 and over are the least likely to wear their seatbelt in San Angelo. So our silver community, along with our screenagers, are the target groups that we're gonna work on. So we appreciate you and we would love for you to share the information that we're gonna introduce to you next week. And please buckle up, okay? Thank you, let's get a picture.

[0:06:15] This is the time of all of our meetings and all of our agendas that we allow for a public comment and anyone that wishes to speak to anything pro or con positive or negative makes no difference we take them off but this is the time that we allow you to come forward we're going to give you three minutes and if you need more if the council decides to give you more we'll give you more but this is time for public comments let me read the legalities and I will ask you to line up at the front issues or items that are not on the agenda may be raised by the public at this time Citizens should speak from the podium began by stating their name and limit remarks to less than five minutes. Council members may request that a discussed item be placed on a future agenda. The Council takes public comment on all regular agenda items during discussion of those items. I'll ask you to line up at the front, state your name, and try and keep your marks between three and five minutes. We usually don't get off this easy. We all be able to live with that negative public comments today. If there is no public comment then I will call this portion of the meeting to a close. Moving on to the consent agenda. This is the time when I will ask the council members individually if there is anything that they would like to pull from the consent agenda for further discussion or if they have any announcements or statements that need to make this is the time that we will allow this. I'll start with you Mrs. Farmer. No sir I have nothing to pull from the agenda and the only public comment that I have is I am still working on a town hall meeting with reference to the Southwest Sherwood Way projects that are going on and it will be in January. That's it. That's it. There's a quarter. No comment. Nothing pool.

[0:08:15] Merry Christmas. I have nothing to pull. I just want to congratulate the Central High School Bobcats for a great season and Merry Christmas everyone. and add the Wall Hawks in there too. Wall Hawks, they've got, they're moving up next week and they're in the semifinals, this is real for the Hawks. And please pray for Irene. And Irene, those cheerleaders, that's a terrible, terrible stage, but did you read in the paper this morning where San Angelo and Kristolville and several other area schools are all sending their cheerleaders to this game this week too? Doesn't that make you glad to be a West Texas? Life is good. Harry. Item G and then as one of my comment that since we're not going to meet before the holidays to wish all the citizens and city staff, council members, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and we'll see everybody in January. Mr. Morning. Nothing to pull. Mr. Harry. Bill. I told you, Harry, you have a time though. Anyway, we'll rock that right there. No, I have nothing to do. I have nothing to pull, and I just like to condone what Harry said, and with all the staff and all the citizens and the council, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Live long and prosper. Thank you, Bill. And I will have no comments to make, but I would like to pull item number in for some future consideration. I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda, that is items A through P with the exception of items G and items N. Move. Move. Move. Exceptions. Okay. I said move to improve. I got him to move and I got to do the second. All right. Do I have any further counsel discussion on this before we go? Do I have public comment on the consent agenda before we vote? I will call for the vote. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed nay? Put a 7-0 on it please Brian.

[0:10:17] Item G. Consider approving New Lake and as were the residential lot leases with the current tenants of the following properties. City priests will be the one that's making this. Number one 1637 canal road lot 140 block 9 section 2 group shady point. Number two 1837 shady point circle drive lot 29 block 7 section 2 group shady point. Number three 1838 shady point circle drive lot 31 block 7 section 2 group shady point. Number four 19 12 shady point circle drive lot 42 block 7 section 2 group shady point number 5 2026 mermaid road like 10 block 8 section 2 group 2 number 6 20 41 american legion road like 22 block 8 group 2 number 7 20 41 80 road like 3 group 1 section 1 group 1 number 8 21 45 hillside drive like 13 block 1 group 2 number 9 25 50 sleepy Holler Road, Lot 22, Block 1, Section 1, Group Fisherman's Road, Number 10, 2165, Gun Club Road, Lot 10, Group 10, Number 11, 3141, Red Bluff Road, Lot 91, Block 4, Section 4, Group Red, Bluff Number 12, 1850, Shady Point, Lot 36, A Block 7, Section 2, Group Shady Point, and Number 13, 2540, Sleepy Holler, Lot 18, Block 1, Section 1, Group Fisherman's Road, Number 14, 2462, Fisherman's Road, Light 11, Block 1, Group 14, and Number 15, 33, 30, Middle Concho, Lock 4, Block 4, Section 1, Group, Middle Concho. Talk to us, Terry. Well, first of all, I want to apologize to Duane for having a reason for 15 of those addresses. I was thinking that as well. I guess my question to Cindy is this. When we sell homes, does that money go back into the lake net and that's where the fund actually we only sell the lot the homes are owned by tenants when we do sell the lots the money does go into the

[0:12:17] trust fund also the lease fees the yearly lease fees 20% of that be collected goes into the trust fund as well I guess my only thing is is somebody that really doesn't think that the city needs to be in property management we need to find a way to incentivize these people that are in these homes at Lake Nazworthy to purchase them instead of continuing to lease the lots from the city. So at some point in time in the future maybe we can sit down and have a conversation and maybe bring back something to the to the council that will allow us to take a look at that. I'm satisfied with this. I move to approve as presented. I have a second from Marty. Do I have any further questions from Council? Do I have public comment on this item. If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed, nay. Put a 7-0 on it, Brian. I pulled item number N, which is the second reading of an ordinance for a text amendment, but chapter 12, Exhibit A is owning ordinance for intermodal containers, Mr. James. And my question, as I began to read this ordinance that we approved last week, I agree with all of it. I think it's a good ordinance. I think it's fair. But I noticed that there was no grandfather clause for these containers that had been legally permitted for however many years. I have a problem when you permit something according to the legal status of the time and then 10, 15, 20 years later they change rules on you and force you to come back and repurmit and the way I read this, we didn't grandfather this so all of these legally permitted containers that these commercial businesses, they will have to come back in, re-permit, re-pay to permit fees, and I have a problem with that. So I was looking for a council, maybe for some language in there too. And I don't mind sending them a copy of the new ordinance. I said, this is what we would like to have done,

[0:14:18] and really painting and position is about the only thing we've changed. I don't have a problem with asking our commercial people to adhere to the new ordinance, but I have a problem with these people that may have six or eight containers having to come back in and repurmit and pay for each one of these permits when they've already fulfilled the obligations of the law once. So Councilor, I need a little help on this. I'd like to see a grandfather clause to protect those commercial permits containers that are already legally permitted. Am I right on it, John? You are, and if I could give just a brief bit of background, the Planning Commission talked about that particular issue at length. What their recommendation to you was to not allow them to continue just by right to be grandfathered but that each existing permitted container could have a process where they could come in and get a conditional use approval by the Planning Commission so that they would review them on an individual basis. What are we talking about in money on this? I believe if I remember right that they asked that that be a no application fee for that conditional use so the normal fee would not apply. They would simply have to submit an application come before a planning commission hearing and then the planning commission would decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to allow a particular container to continue. Part of the reason for that was that many of these are, they're often temporary so you bring a container on your site then you take it off and you bring another one on and so again that was the recommendation that came to you from the planning commission. Oh you're saying that they would have to come in and repurmit if there would be no charge for the permit there would be no charge for the conditional use review by the planning commission there would still be the building permit or they're still gonna if they've got 10 secrets they're still gonna have to buy 10 permits to keep them right those are permitted as a group so if you have 10 and you bring in for the permit at one time there you know off the top of my head I don't know

[0:16:18] it's Becca suggesting maybe it's a hundred dollars or and that's a problem I've got a real problem with that I've got a real problem I mean what you can't make people that bought a Model T forward, go back and put airbags on them to meet today's qualifications. It's, you can't make people go back and redo according to new laws. I mean, this is starting a precedence. That's awful hard to, you can't stop it. That's why we have legal permits according to the laws that are in effect at the time of the permit. And we're changing the rules. They didn't change. We changed the rules. I don't think it's fair to make them go back and spend $100 or $150 or even $5 to repurmit something that they have already legally permitted. So I'd like a grandfather clause in this, and if I can get four votes to go with me, we're going to put it in there. I agree. Well, and make a motion in our second shift that we grandfather all legally permitted commercial. I'll make the motion. I would like to grandfather all legally commercially permitted sea containers that they would not have to repurmit to continue to be legal. Second. Got a second on that. And again, I don't mind you sending all of these people. You've got a copy of them. You know who they are. You've got your permit. Send a copy of the new law and say here's what we would like you to do to adhere to the new law. But I don't think we're like, I don't think we can force anyone to do this. So I have any comment from Council on this? First of all, I didn't see any reason for this ordinance. I had no problem with what I've seen around town. And I think this is an ordinance that is unnecessary. It's an invasion of business rights. It's a private property rights and a density business. And as I mentioned last time. I think they did have the containers double stacked all at the Walmart they were insured way when they were putting in the new air conditioning system and you

[0:18:21] can go up there and you know they damaged their parking lot I guess by the way but I think any restrictions on business of this sort is unnecessary and it's anti-business. Thank you. Anybody else have a comment on this? I have public comment on this item. Good Good morning. You're Hampton's my name, I have a question, do they have to come up to code, do they have to be painted, do they, you know, to meet all the requirements, and you're in your, okay, so. No, I'm not shaking my hand. Oh, okay. Pardon me. You understand the question. I understand the question. If you built a house and had it permitted in 1940 in San Angelo and had legal permits, And then in 2016, we come back and say, you got to come back and buy a new permit and bring that house that you built in 1940 up to 216 codes. That's not fair to you as a homeowner. And I don't think it's fair. I agree in being fair, excuse me, but this was a focus on cleaning up the environment, the appearance of things and things of that nature. I'm just, I'm not saying I agree with it either, but I'm just trying to clarify, because I was sitting back there, I didn't follow if you had any desire for them to upgrade their parents or anything like that. I think we ask them they will. Okay, I think, well, anyway, that's my question. Thank you, Greg. Thank you. Any further public comment on this item? I want to call for the vote. Yeah, yes, 100. What was the call? We weren't able to find out the cost.

[0:20:23] I can get that information for you, but I don't know that off the top of my head. I will answer that last question, though. If this motion passes to approve this amendment, then the ordinance would not require any of those existing permitted containers to come into compliance with the screening, painting, any of those standards. under the Planning Commission's recommendation to you all, that was one of the reasons they wanted that provision in, is so that each one could come in, and on a case-by-case basis, they could either apply or not apply those provisions, just based on the particulars of that commercial site. But in the ordinance last time, when we eliminated the screening, so really all we're talking about is the painting. So that's all we're talking about, is painting over the Evergreen, or whatever the name is on the side. So we're not talking about much. And the low vision on the side. So we're not talking about much. And most of these businesses have placed these in the very best spot for their business. Anyway, I mean, these are commercial businesses that want their business to nice, they're in business to sell and make money. They're already trying to do what is right. And if there's a problem, all you have to do is ask them and they'll fix it. I mean, it's a minimal thing. But I don't want to have to come back in and start all over and meet codes that they've already met once, Lucy? I had a question. How many businesses are we talking about that would be grandfather did? You know, we did not look through all of the past permits to see how many are out there. I think most businesses don't use these containers for storage, but we know that there are quite a few. I couldn't even guess how many are out there. Any other questions? Public comment? emotions made we grandfather those that are already legally permitted all in favor please say aye aye aye I guess raise your hand and the nays well let's

[0:22:27] put a 5-2 in favor of grandfathering all right let's move on to the regular agenda this is consider ratifying a resolution by the city of San Angelo Development Corporation approving an economic development in Sanity principal L-E-D-L-L-C in an amount of $350,000 in authorizing the board president to negotiate and execute a performance agreement. Mr. We start that. Since we grandfathered all the rest of that is all the rest of that motion. All the rest of the second reading is passed. We can amend. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, Mayor, City Council members, City Manager, Staff, and my name is Roland Penny, Director of Economic Development. I want to thank the City Council for your support and everything that we're doing in economic development, and in particular with the Business Retention and Expansion program, I have passed out a resolution that, after reviewing the City Council packet, I noticed something magical. It looked like you had an inadvertent, different resolution, so I provided the correct resolution for you to review. This is a resolution passed by Costa DC. I do have extra copies for the media and any of the members of the audience who may wish to receive a copy. I thought it'd be good to kind of give you a brief history back in 2014 and I was

[0:24:29] noticing as I was sitting in the audience was that we have currently four new city council members, a city attorney and a new city clerk that we didn't have prior to this business retention in the expansion program. This was a desire by council at the time, a desire by Co-City Seaboard to create a program to look at our existing businesses and to give them that attention, the same kind of attention that we were giving those companies that we were trying to recruit. And so we embarked on putting together a committee, we put together a program, a marketing plan, an incentive policy that we brought before the city council at the time, the city council members at the time wanted us to make it administratively approved so that we could move at the speed of business. And so we've tried to do that. There's only one issue in that. We bring it to you by consent because our bylaws say that the council members have to approve any one of our contracts. So that's the format that we use. We also thought it'd be a good idea to bring to you a good news story, and it'd be a proper way to end the year. I'm going to talk about the success of our program at the end of this presentation. So this agenda item does ask for ratification of the resolution and economic development performance agreement that is in your packet. This is for incentives to principal LED LLC. They are a company that is headquartered here in San Angelo. They're growing and they're expanding very fast. They produce LED lighting fixture assemblies. They are involved in the commercial side, but the residential side is growing. Residential division is growing rapidly.

[0:26:31] The employee, 51 people currently have average salary of 52,000 per year and this does involve an expansion of a new facility, estimated cost of 800,000 approximate. That cost does not include fixed furniture and equipment, so we expect that capital investment to be beyond that 800,000. The agreement calls for 15, a minimum of 15 jobs to 50, and these are 50 jobs that will be created in 10 years. I'd like to point out that 33 of those jobs will be created in less than five years. We've been working with Principal LED for several months now, and we think this is a very good incentive for the company, just to talk about the $35,000 per year, that is the pay that they will have, and it includes a salary, but what I thought was very important for you to know and for the audience is that the additional payroll or workers' earnings associated with the project is estimated to be approximately $22.4 million over the next 10 years. On an annual basis at full operation, the project will support 21 million in annual economic output or sales for businesses in the community. Additionally, this economic activity will result in an increase in gross area product of 8.4 million annually. We get this data from the economic impacts studies that we do with every project. This is the summary of the incentives, development fee rebates, tax rebate, grant, COSEDC pays for every one of these incentives. This is not a tax abatement.

[0:28:31] It is not a city tax rebate where the city pays out of their coffers. It is COSEDC funded and it comes out of their fund. We also reimburse for sales and use taxes for materials and equipment. We are recommending a job creation grant of $250,000 for 50 full-time employees. And then we also are including a $50,000 job training grant. This is a new program that we've embarked on with the Workforce Development Board. you feel like the Workforce Development Board every year has a lot of dollars that get left on the table and they're underutilized, but if we can incentivize a company to use our dollars to take advantage of theirs, they can have a bigger pot of money for training purposes, especially when we're talking about IT jobs. I also want to talk about what we've done in 2015 and 2016. These are the total projects and the data that you have here does not include one more retention project. But this is a result of the Business Retention and Expansion Program, and it does include Principal LED if you approve it today, 303 new jobs, and it includes 395 indirect jobs as a result of those new jobs. We've helped to retain 339 jobs, and we are looking at $5.9 million of capital investment that's a capital investment that goes on the tax rolls that goes in turn feeds the general fund and we are looking at an annual economic output of 158.8 million. Staff recommends approval and we do have the owners of the company Brian and Blake Vincent available here in the event that you have any questions that you

[0:30:32] might want to ask. Eric? How many questions is this? You hit two figures up there, $350,000, and $3,17,8,11. Which one are we actually approving this morning? Are you asking us to approve? Well, we want the flexibility of, because we are in negotiation. We are in negotiating an agreement. We've made it available up to $350,000. So we're saying give us the flexibility up to $350,000 because it is a project that is dynamic. In fact, it's a possibility that there may be more capital investment that we're talking about and we may have to bring an amendment to that $350,000. The other question I may have is you looked at training incentives. Is that going to be utilized with Howard College work or ASU or somewhere in the local economy? Yes, sir. That is the intention. the dollars. We want them to utilize the workforce dollars that are available by the workforce development board and if they do that then we'll incentivize 50,000. What normally happens is we look at customized training with either ASU or at higher college and or the company itself can provide customized training and those dollars are available through the workforce development board. I'm satisfied. I move to approve as presented. We have a second. Motion to accept is presented and a second. I also have a couple of questions for you and then we'll bring the events inside and let them speak to this. The jobs will be paid in arrears. We're not paying up front, correct? The way the performance agreement works is you perform then we pay and we usually give you the year to perform. So you incur the capital investment, you show us proof that you've hired the employees, that you incur the capital investment and then we pay and so we give you a certain amount of time to provide that information it is provided to us in the form of affidavit and and proof of

[0:32:34] documents. Well that way they're going to do what they have to do to get the to get the mark. Correct. That you are correct. We do pay interrears. And also this is a local company that's been here for a long time. They've they've been very good for San Angelo and our economy. I know that we also had one to the Cody we had a similar with at the con. The point that I want to make is that any company in this city has the right to come to you for this type of an incentive if they wish to do this type of a project. So we're not just picking and choosing but these people actually approached us they gave us a plan and we were able to approve based on the plan and this is available to any and all in our region. That is correct and I Mayor what we've done is we created through the marketing plan and awareness we knock on doors, we made over 160 calls to different industry sectors, we made presentations, and I think principal LED was at one of the presentations that we were at, and that's what prompted them to react and say, hey, well, I didn't know this program was available, but it is. We're thinking about expanding. In fact, they are closing two operations out of state to bring them to San Angelos Texas and bring those jobs to San Angelos, Texas. The point I wanted to make is that this works. This works. bringing in a company from outside and starting over. This is working with companies that are already approved, that have already approved themselves. It works and I'm glad. Vincent, y'all wanna make a statement? I have a question. I'm sorry, Charlotte. You stated that you pay in arrears and they have to show proof of job creation and hiring, but how long do they have to maintain that individual employee, those numbers? We normally typically ask for three years. We ask if you created a full-time employee, and we want you to retain them for three years, and that is part of the agreement. That is in this agreement also. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions, Council? Then come up and tell us all about this.

[0:34:40] You're on your own. Normally he's the other way. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council members. You know, first of all, we love San Angelo. Our intent has been to do business here. We've incurred a tremendous amount of growth over the past five years. Our plan is to double over the next five, the bigger you get, the tougher that gets. We've done some of it, though, as was mentioned through acquisition. We bought a couple of companies, one in West Palm Beach, Florida, which we consolidated with the operation we had in Columbia, South Carolina, and we'll be relocating that facility here and the majority of those operations here. You know, one of the things I just want to mention, we manufacture, we put lights in a box. It's not that complex. But we manufacture LED lighting that goes into commercial signs primarily. So, we sell all over the United States and North America. We sell some in Canada as well in Mexico. So, all the jobs that we create here are basically the revenue that comes back as all primary very jobs. And interestingly, the one comment that I get from people, customers, distributors, all over the United States, is you guys have the best people. And I think it says a lot for San Angelo. I think it says a lot for the type of employees we have here. And I'm excited about the future of San Angelo. And part of what we want to do is also encourage other businesses to be here, because we think it's a great place to operate at a meeting yesterday with the city about some issues related to the building and they were very gracious to come up with some solutions that we think are going to work and maybe be better for the city as well. So, this is a good place to do business. We're excited to be here and thank you guys for the opportunity.

[0:36:44] We look forward to a good year coming. I will mention one other thing. You see the salaries. they are one of the things that we do, you know, there are some regulations about everyone's concerned about health care. You know, one of the things we started really early on is we've always paid 100% of our employees' health care and we continue to do that. We do it out of, you know, not just out of social responsibility, not just being the right thing to do at the end of the day. And so, you know, our goal is to provide good paying jobs. Our goals to grow, but we take San Angelo seriously, we take our employees, their families seriously, we want them to prosper. Right now, we have a vendor in from China, we have vendor, another couple of folks that are in from Kentucky, and they're all staying in hotels, so there's also some economic benefit as well. I don't know how many hours we fly on American Airlines, but it's a lot, so we hope others can benefit as well and we appreciate the council's consideration and the opportunity to partner with the city. So if you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. Questions? I appreciate what you boys have done. I mean, you've been very successful out there. You're good for our city and I thank you. Thank you, Mayor, appreciate you, thank you. Do I have public comment on this before we vote? I don't think it just shows our Brett program really works. Mr. Mayor. What's that term homegrown gardening or local gardening? What is the term that you use? Who? Economic gardening. Economic gardening. It works. It works. I think this is proof. Mr. Mayor. Yes, ma'am. I want to thank the gentleman for pointing out the willingness of our staff and the good words that you had to say. We're in the complaint business up here.

[0:38:45] All we ever hear about are the bad things, the occasional. And when you've got a little over 1,000 employees, they're bound to stump their toe once in a while. So thank you for the kind words that you said about our staff, their willingness to help, because they really do want to say yes. And I appreciate that. Thank you. If no more comments from Council, and no more public comments, I will call for the vote. The vote the motion has been made that we accept this as presented. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Put a 7-0 on that one, right? Thank you very much, brother. Item B is consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of one or more series of the city of San Angelo, Texas waterworks and sewer system revenue bonds. Delegating the authority to certain city officials to execute certain documents relating to the sale of the bonds established procedures for the sale and delivery of the bonds, providing for the security for the security for and payment of such bonds and authorizing and enacting other matters and provisions related to the subject. Tina Derski, you have the floor, ma'am. Thank you, Mayor. Good morning, Mayor, Council, City Manager. Glad to be here. I'm Tina Derski, Director of Finance. As you know, we voted in November, let me take this slide here, to allow the City Manager to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the four ranch with the intent to issue debt for that purchase at a not to exceed a price of $13.50 per acre. This ordinance will allow us to begin that process. As you know, we plan to sell the ranch once we secure the water rights and clarify all of that business. And so normally we issue debt and you cannot pay it off before 10 years. So with this one, we will structure it with a five-year prepayment option so that when we know to sell the ranch we can use the proceeds to pay off the debt issue. The bond will be paid through water sales revenue that was incorporated into the

[0:40:46] new water rate structure that went in to effect on January 1st of this year so this will not have any impact on water rates and this the bonds will be issued on a taxable basis since the city does have an intent to turn on and sell it. That's pretty much it if you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them. Questions Council? Good to see you here, Vince. You make all this work for us? Appreciate you, buddy. I've been commenting on this item before we move on. I guess I'm looking for a motion. I'll move. Okay. In a second. Lane. Harry Lane. I just like to... Yes, Harry. Yes, Bill. I'm not going to do that again. I'm not going to do it again. Anyway, I'd just like to say thank you to staff and our legal assistant here in our legal department for guiding us through this process. And I think it's a good for the city, I approve. Any further comments for a call for the vote? Motion has been made that we accept these bonds to buy this ranch, to sell this ranch, protect our water, protect our people, Sell the ranch, pay the money back, isn't that about it? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed nay? Put a 7-0 on that one, Brian. Thank you very much, Vince. I appreciate you, buddy. Thank you, all. Item number C is the first reading and public hearing on an ordinance amending chapter 12, Exited A, Zoning Ordinance for bed and breakfast establishments, and short-term rentals. John James, you have the floor, sir. Thank you, John James, Director of Planning and Development Services. this item you've seen before. This is coming back to you, if you recall, at the last time you discussed this,

[0:42:46] you asked staff to meet with a representative from basically those folks who are opposed to short-term rentals and those who are in favor to see if we could work out a compromise. I think we've done that. And so what I'm gonna present to you is, I'm gonna briefly remind you how we got to this point, but then the bulk of what I'm gonna show you is the changes from the last version of the ordinance you saw. As you see, short-term rentals are not currently allowed under the code. What we've proposed is an ordinance that would allow short-term rentals. So we created a new definition and categorization in the zoning ordinance for short-term rentals, as well as making some minor changes to the bed and breakfast definition to distinguish it from short-term rentals. Here are the definitions. You've seen these before. I'm not going to read those again. But basically, if you're renting for less than 30 days, you're either a bed and breakfast or short-term rental, depending on whether you're renting the entire house or individual bedrooms in the house. Where would they be allowed for short-term rentals? They would be a conditional use everywhere, except the Central Business District, where they would be allowed by right in the downtown. The conditional use requires an individual review for each case by the Planning Commission. That does not go to council, except it can be appealed. And that's something we discussed with the group. The some of the opponents preferred that these approvals would come to City Council every time. What we're recommending is keeping it as a conditional use because anyone, not just the applicant, but any citizen can appeal that decision to the City Council. So in any case where this is a controversial item, It would have the ability to come to council for a final decision. I'm not going to read through all these. These are all the standards that have not changed. The restrictions on short-term rentals, things like a number of people, hours of no outdoor

[0:44:51] gatherings, parking, signage, et cetera. We can come back to that if you have specific questions. The ordinance also requires registration and inspection, a certificate of occupancy, firing inspection kind of the normal normal things you would expect again nothing in this has changed since the last time you saw this ordinance. So here's where we get to the recommended changes again these are the compromised changes that we've worked out. One we would require a registered operator who resides in Tom Green County. One of the issues that we've heard is that some of these properties are or at least could be owned by someone out of town and managed from afar and the concern is if there is a problem on the site there's no one to contact. So this would require each property to have a designated operator. Could be the owner but if it's owned by someone in California they would have to designate someone that lives in the county that would be contacted. That information would be on file with the city. It would also have to be sent to all of the properties within 200 feet as part of the normal notification to the surrounding property owners. They also have to post a notice inside the unit with the contact information of that operator as well as some information on the noise and occupancy restrictions so that tenants of the short-term rental would be aware of what those restrictions are. There was an issue you may recall on whether or not to allow camping and so the compromise that we came to was to say no camping but make an exception for pup tents which the ordinance defines so basically if the kids family rents the the lake home for example and the kids want to sleep out in the tent in the backyard they would be able to do that in a small tent but you wouldn't be able to have three four five large tents for a big gathering of people. Also added the provision based on some recent discussions to not permit a short-term rental on city-owned lease lots.

[0:46:55] So property, or the owner of a leased property would have to purchase their lot in order to make a short-term rental out of the property. No bed and breakfast or short-term rental would be allowed on a street of less than 30 feet in width. That is intended to address concerns about parking. If you have larger groups of people a short-term rental. We only require two off-street parking spaces so you might have people parking along the street. That could become a problem on narrow streets. I will tell you that both sides we talked to agreed with that provision. Staff has some concerns with that limitation but again in the spirit of working the compromise with this group we're bringing that to you as a recommendation, the same with their recommendation of no short-term rentals within 500 feet of another short-term rental, basically not allowing, you know, a whole street or one area of a neighborhood to be basically overrun with short-term rentals. Again, staff has some concerns about saying, you know, my neighbor can have a short-term rental, but once they're in I can't make my house a short-term rental just because I'm within 500 feet of them. So we think there There may be a fairness issue there, but again, both sides that we talked to were in agreement that that was a reasonable restriction to prevent too much of a spread of these. The asterisk there says that both of those two requirements I just mentioned would not apply to existing bed and breakfast or short-term rentals that are currently registered with the state and with the city. Basically, we're not going to close down a short-term rental that's been operating just because they may be too close to another one, but any new one could not get permitted if they're within 500 feet or on a street of less than 30 feet in width. Finally, a conditional use approval must be renewed

[0:48:56] after one year and then two years thereafter. I put that question mark basically just to remind myself to mention to you, that's in section 406A1, We need to reword that a little bit. It references a bed and breakfast or short-term riddle must obtain a license from the city and that license has to be renewed after one year and then after Subsequently two years And we just need to reword that instead of license to say the conditional use approval But the purpose of that is basically if if you get your approval and you're doing everything right You reapply the Planning Commission would say yeah, you're doing everything right will let you continue but in the case where we have a short-term rental that is causing problems for the neighbors after a year the neighbors are all going to get a notice and there'll be a new public hearing and if neighbors show up and say hey these these people are causing problems they're renting to too many people there's too much noise there've been police police complaints whatever then the Planning Commission should could not renew that conditional to use. That sort of gives us a safety valve for those circumstances. Again, I think everyone agrees that many of these can operate with no problems for the neighbors. This is a way to address those few cases where we might have problems. That's really it. Those are the compromise changes. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Council, any questions for John? Oh, yes. You want to start with you, Bill? My recollection from the last council meeting was that there would be, it was recommended by council and I think there was a motion passed that there would just be two changes made to that presentation that was given at this time. This is not the same presentation. Actually, what we left with was that the council asked me and John to put together a committee

[0:50:59] which represented the both sides of the party and to see if we could come to a resolution and bring that back to the council for your consideration. So that's what we did. So yeah, there were some changes based on what this committee recommended. That's not my recommendation. Congratulations and I don't believe everybody was allowed to participate in this committee. At the time, and Brian may be able to speak to it from the motion that was made, but at the time we asked council who they appointed two representatives, Mr. Gossett and Mr. Mitchell, as far as I think Mr. Gossett represented that side, and then they were trying to, they were to select another and you can speak to that. Yeah, again, I think you're right that there are some folks out there that have contacted me and don't believe that all voices were represented. Again, our direction from you all was to have one representative from each side to see if we could come up with a compromise. We did have one person that many of the short-term rental owners and operators selected to meet on that committee and then Mr. Gossett representing those that are opposed. Leave, we followed the recommendation of the council in trying to come up with this resolution. Obviously we, you know, we could have had a group of 50 people, but your direction was to pick one from each side and we tried to do that as best we could. out. That's not my recollection of what to place. Gary, you had questions? I got questions, but I got a whole statement that I'm going to read. I want to make sure that the public understands that this group up here has spent a lot of time trying to do what we need to do. Personally, I spent more than 100 hours and I know most of the rest of these council people up here who have done that. I looked at other Sydney ordinances, state laws, lawsuits on both sides, I've worked tirelessly on this issue and I

[0:52:59] do not take it lightly. I make that statement because I'm going to get into some things that personally I've been offended by. City staff has spent hundreds of hours on this. John James has met with both sides on this. There are in some people that have stated that they're against short-term rentals in San Angelo, but they utilize them as vacation homes in other places that they visit. Some of you out there that must be clairvoyant because I've been told that they know how I'm going to vote, and I think the good Lord is the only person that knows how I'm planning on voting today. As a matter of fact, I can tell you that I haven't made up my mind yet, and we're five minutes away from this. some people that have threatened me and this counsel and we don't vote a certain way, they would ensure that we wouldn't be here for the next vote. And I'm going to tell you this, threatening me probably would vote a response that is opposite of what they had intended. A threat generally results in a fight or flight reaction and at my stage in my life, I don't run as fast as I used to. I've been told that this issue is probably political suicide for anyone intending to run again for this council or other public office. But the citizens look to me to make those hard decisions. As one group of citizens will tell you, that's what I get paid the big bucks for. No matter how this council votes today, this issue is probably not going to go away. this council or future councils will continue to vet this issue for years to come. I would say that if the citizens are not happy with this vote, maybe they will consider spending the time and money necessary to sit in these positions. Having made that statement, then I'll ask a few questions.

[0:55:01] And I appreciate the public and the council allowing me to make those statements. How many of these STR operators are within 500 feet of one another and how many of them are on streets that are less than 30, 30 feet wide? We were not able to determine that. I think I'm not aware of any that are within 500 feet of each other, but they're only a handful. And I'm sure maybe some of the the public and the public comment can can address some of that. I'm aware of at least one that is on a street of less than 30 feet in width. I believe there is one that's no longer a short-term rental, but used to be a short-term rental that was on a street of less than 30 feet in width, that did cause some parking problems, which is part of the reason that provision got added in. I'm gonna ask this question. If we're allowing up to 20 people to spend some time out there, our two parking spaces, off-street parking spaces sufficient, I really don't believe that they are. personally. Last last thing I would ask is this if a person if we decided to approve this ordinance and a STR operator has a group that is causing some issues noise nuisance whatever the case may be. Any provision in this thing that this conditional use can be revoked before this one year? Yes the our ordinance is not clear on the process for that but it does reference revocation of a conditional use and so the Planning Commission does have the authority to revoke a conditional use again it's not clear on who can ask for that what brings it before them but presumably staff has the ability if sufficient complaints were received we could take that back to them as a discussion item or a decision item to

[0:57:04] to revoke that certificate of occupancy. Our hope is that having it reviewed after a year, and then subsequently two years after that, would in most cases be sufficient. But if there's a horrible problem out there, that would be a possible solution. Last comment is I want to thank the staff for working through these particular issues. This is a contentious issue. There's people on both sides in this audience. I've been contacted on, From people from both sides on this so whatever that vote is today hopeful people will realize that This council and the city staff took the time to go ahead and and review this Thank you Would you like us to speak John to speak to the parking requirements and where those came from? That's certainly I mean if you've got 20 if you've got 20 people that I'll take example that we've had family reunions in some of these places This is, we've even had, for lack of a better word, a wake or they had a family member that passed and there were people coming from different cities that came in and quite honestly, I know people that travel this way, don't travel with a full carload sometimes and so if you get 20 people out here, you're going to certainly have more than two vehicles and I think that's concern. I think if we made a requirement more than that, I think this would help some of the opponents when we view this. I'll just say that was discussed quite a bit. I even mentioned at the council at one point that staff had some concerns that two parking spaces might not be enough. I'll I'll give you the flip side is, in most cases, two parking spaces would be sufficient, and some of the concerns raised were,

[0:59:06] I could have a party at my house, and I don't have sufficient parking, and cars are gonna park in the street, so that's a normal expectation, at least on rare occasion, in any neighborhood. And I think back to this 30 foot and width street, that any street over 30 feet is planned to accommodate parking on the sides of the street. And so that shouldn't, that should be less of a problem in those circumstances. Another option might be to say on these streets less than 30 feet in width that you actually can have a short-term rental if you provide six parking spaces or something as sort of an option. But I think on streets that are wide enough that are planned and designed for on-street parking providing some of that overflow you might call it on the street is what every neighborhood is designed to do anyway. I have questions down here. Is going to go right down the line. Who else you have one line. Go. I'd also like to thank staff Mr. Gossett Mitchell, Mr. Scotty, Martinez's, Dan Bird, Powell's for trying to work for this compromise. I understand property rights on both sides, which has made this the nightmare. But this is a different ball game. I've been having phone calls, emails, personal meetings with both sides. And at this point, the opposition has the votes for referendum. I've seen the signatures, which will cost a $30,000 special election to the taxpayer. Mr. Taxpayer's money. So that has the question of is it worth it at this point without an initiating committee to be on the May's ballot. I would say that the way that we need to proceed is have that initiating committee put it on the May ballot

[1:01:08] free of charge to where it can be placed to the voters hands and go from there. Got it? And I agree with everything that Harry said, been beat up, bruised, bloodied, and threatened as recently as yesterday that I needed to get out of town immediately. I'm fed up. It makes sitting in this seat up here very undesirable. I cannot imagine what the staff has been through to try and do their job and try to make everybody happy, which isn't going to happen. if proponent and both sides would just look, you're asking for the same thing, the right to use your property as you see fit within the law. Now that's why attorneys make a good living, is everybody's judgment is to what that law says or that ordinance says, everybody has a different opinion of what that is. And my request was to make sure that our ordinance was very clear and it didn't leave any doubt. The one thing that I have a problem with the recommended changes, you're stating on a street less than 30 feet in width, but I have to ask you, especially out at the lake, a lot of these lake properties that have got a block long driveway and there is sufficient parking within their property to park, well shouldn't that be an exception to the 30 foot because there is sufficient parking on their property. I know that annually I attend a gathering out there at the lake around the 4th of July, and they park within the property, even though the property across the street is totally vacant

[1:03:13] in a circle, but it takes all the parking that there's available over there. So there are different circumstances that can offset that 30-foot that is not cast in stone. And then back to what Mr. Richardson was stating about all parties had the opportunity to voice her to work on the committee. I came to my attention this weekend in spending time on this, that I'm not speaking for the the council but I assumed we had two sides to this story and we don't. There are three sides to this story and that third side wasn't included in any meeting or even considered. Now whether that's a mistake on our part or the citizens part or staff's part is immaterial to me. I do recall what Rick said is to being what they were to come away with then maybe Maybe we weren't clear enough, but I can tell you, for me, I did not know there was a third side, because I had been informed or told that this person was speaking for so and so, and this person was speaking for so and so. And I attended meetings along with Mr. Carter and myself, lots of meetings over the summer. And I will say that the, what are we calling the left side of the room here? You're the proponent for change, okay? The group of people, there was a large group of people, and they got together in front of us and designated a spokesperson. So I'm very comfortable with that. But I was not aware that the, like Naz, where the Homeowners Association didn't have a a designated spokesperson, and in my opinion, most of this is centered around the lake.

[1:05:13] That's where our complaints and stuff are from, because the other STRs that I found are mostly in Lane's District, there's quite a few in Lane's District, but I've heard no complaints out of the neighborhood or people in that district. So it seems like we're centered in one area out of the lake. But frankly, I'm not, I don't think we can make something applied just to the lake and nobody else. It's got to be for everybody. And I don't think that enough time has been given properly to the all parties who are representative from all parties and therefore I don't want to act on anything. I certainly don't want to see this bleed into next year, but it's possible that it may be, that needs to be done. There's no way to make anyone, everyone happy, because for the life of me, all of you want it your way or not at all, and that's just not reasonable. And I'm like, here he is, I came today, not knowing which way I was going to vote for. So those of you who have been so happy to post on Facebook, you know how I'm going to vote, I've stated how I'm going to vote. Well, I wish you would tell me how I'm going to vote, because this is very difficult. And quite frankly, since I'm the last one to speak, I'd like to ask for a break. I would like to say something before we break. We're going to take it one at a time. We started with you. We've ended at Charlotte, and I'm still waiting. And Lucy wants to as well. And I do want to take a break before we do any kind of voting. So if I get up and leave, you know why. Not mad at anybody, just take your calls. I don't have any questions. I just wanted to make a statement.

[1:07:14] And like Charlotte said, it's mostly around the wake. Well, for me, it's like we've all gone through this at one time or another job, for example. Somebody always ruins it for somebody else. You know, you have it going good, and then somebody starts coming in late, and then everybody has to pay for that person because it's reported. And this was reported to us, and now we're having to decide what we're going to do. I think it's hard, because I understand the people that don't want the STRs, and I understand the people that do want them. And that being said, it's kind of really sad to see our community starting to get divided for something like whom we actually get together and work hard, and y'all have done that. I've gone to the STRs where these homes are really nice, that I don't see how they could actually rent these homes out to somebody that they thought might destroy them. So you see, you have the people that actually use these homes with families. Enjoy them, or law-abiding people. And then you have the kids or the young people that go out there and party till five o'clock in the morning, which I'm saying is the problem. that the residents there are having. So again, it is hard, but I feel that the changes that have come up, everybody's trying to work. And like Charlotte said, no one's going to win. And I really don't think it's about winning. I think it's about compromising with each other and seeing how y'all can work this thing with each other out there at the lake. When it does become a big mess that you can talk to each other and say, hey, this is what's happening and try to get it resolved. That's my take on that. I think you've done a good job, John. I think you did a good job the first time

[1:09:14] we were able to deal with this. And this is the third time that we have dealt with this. And no, Charlotte, I do not want to keep continue to put this thing off and put this thing off. It'll last through ages. There's no reason to, there's no reason not to make a decision on this. One way or another, let's get this thing over with. I think you've done a good job. I think the original proposal that you made was good. You've made some more restrictions in this. I don't have a problem with anyone. I'm not very much for this. I'm very much for property rights, and I think people ought to be able to do with the property, what they want to. We've got a police department that patrols STRs and violations of ordinances. They patrol STRs and they patrol those that own their houses and own them for years. We've got a police department, we've got ordinances, we've got laws in effect, and our police department is going to enforce those laws. These STRs are no different than any other neighborhood in any other house, or any other party in our city. So I don't have any problem at all, and I don't think that argument holds water. If you got a problem with your neighbor, whether he's been there 50 years, or whether he's been there for two days, call the police and have them solve it. There are laws to protect our citizens. I don't have a problem with these STRs, I supported it the first time, and I supported this time, And I would certainly hope that this council will make a decision because we have already spent about five public hours on this one deal. And I'm tired of it. Here are you had something else? I'll be okay. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I've been contacted by both sides. And I haven't changed my opinion on this. And, you know, I've got emails from those who oppose my views on it, who congratulated me for my opinion and the effort that I put into this. And I like that, you know, you know, I haven't been threatened, and I don't know, you know,

[1:11:14] that's a shameful, shameful, shameful way to behave. you know I have you know I'll say again I have emails from from the supporters who thank me for speaking up and voice in my opinion so you know it's shameful for anybody to to threaten any member of this council over over an issue that's in front of the city thank you well I've been cussed in every language and over the situation we've ever dealt with so you know I didn't know this was any different. I thought he's part of the job. Thankfully, being from the North End of Town, I knew whatever one of those things means. Ryan? I just wanted to address some comments that Council Member Carter mentioned about an initiative. Though they might have the amount of signatures, of course, those wouldn't be official documents until they put together their initiating committee, but that is something that could be placed in line in the timeline for a May election if if that's something the council decides to do. The other option is, of course, if you pass something, that third group that Council Member Farmer mentioned has already asked about the possibility of creating a referendum committee, which is the same sort of process as the initiating committee, but they would try to go to the voters to repeal any ordinance that is presented here because it's not something that they had input in. So I spent some time speaking on the phone with that group as well. I just want y'all to be aware of everything that's a possibility, and that could result in, if it's a referendum, if it's initiative, we can probably get it in on the mail action. If it's a referendum, it could be, you know, the timing, depending on how the timing goes, it could not coincide with the mail action. we could have to call a special election,

[1:13:15] which would result in additional fees, unless there is a runoff with the mayoral election, then we could possibly put it in on that and, you know, we'd have that expense anyway. I just wanna make sure y'all have that information and anybody that needs to know about the process, it's section 47 of the charter speaks to the initiating and referendums. And that's the point I meant to make. The charter spills every bit of the south. If the citizen does not agree with the decision we make, they have an automatic ride of appeal through referendum and it's all spelled out in the charter and that's to each and every citizen of this city. So, there are ways. If they follow a referendum on the day that we pass second reading and they pass it after the first reading, does it have to be after the second? It would have to be adopted before they could do that. What would be the timeline? Is there a specific? It would be tight to make it in May. It could happen theoretically, but they have a certain amount of time. I don't have it right in front of me above, I believe it's 60 days to get the votes from the time that they establish the referendum committee. They have all the paperwork for the referendum the day of. If they were able to, well, they wouldn't be, they could establish the referendum committee the day of the day it's adopted. then they would have 60 days to procure the signatures, but they have to, they cannot procure any signatures before they create the committee. So they would obtain forms from me, just to make sure that they're uniform, to try to protect anybody going through this process. They could obtain the petitions from me to make sure that those are valid, and then they would have to go through and get the signatures. They would have 60 days to do that. Now, if they could do that in a day or two days, who knows? Then they turn it to me, our office would work probably in conjunction with the city attorney's office to verify those signatures and to get it back before y'all to call the election.

[1:15:16] So it's, it's a tight time frame, but it is something that is possible either for the mayoral election in May, or certainly the possible, probable, probable runoff of the mayoral election next year. I wanted to know whether that 60 days was set in concrete, or can they do it in a shorter period of time if they have sufficient authorized signatures. They have that much time to do it in, they can get it done before that time. If they were able to do it in a 30-day time frame, then there's sufficient time based on everything else for them to get it on the May ballot. very possibly. It just depends on how long it takes them to procure those signatures and it is just in case there's any questions about the percentage or the number of signatures. It's 25% of the voters in the last mayoral election which was approximately 5500 so. Got it. Something burning. Probably me. First of all, Mr. Mayor, I agree with you. I'm sick of this. I'm tired of it. I don't see any reason to kick this can any further except the possibility of a referendum, the possibility that the third group who feel like they were omitted from any of the committee meeting and discussion, if they could be permitted and take this out just a little longer so that they can have their voice in any changes and understand what was going on, we could avoid an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer. Not that this council is causing that, but as Brian so eloquently stated, anyone can call for referendum out there. And whether they get it in in the mail election or not, man, that's a short time frame to educate all the people as to exactly what they're voting for. That's a short time frame for legal to

[1:17:16] work out the language that we're allowed to put on a ballot so everyone would understand. And that's a lot of extra work and expense that I'm trying to avoid, Mr. Mayor, that's all. Whether this has to be decided today or January, but that was my comment about the third party having the ability to come in and look at and sit down and talk with staff, which they feel that they were denied. That's my only comment. But at this point I'm leaning strongly putting it to bed myself simply because this has been worse than the roosters. If anybody's around this bitter round that can remember the rooster or deal this has been worse than the roosters and quite frankly. Any of the comments from council I know we're gonna have some public comment you asked for a break it's 956 let's be back at 10 15 and we'll start it 18 let's call this meeting back to order like the thank mr. Mike Mitchell I've now been cussed out in Greek so everything is running well three languages it's got to be a record doesn't it let's move on on this we have had our council discussion I will now open this up for public comment. I am going to put some restrictions on it. Since we've dealt with this, this is the third time and we've heard all of it. We've heard about increased traffic, we've heard about increased parking, we've heard about increased noise, we've heard about parties, we've heard about drinking and smoking, we've heard about we don't know our neighbors, we've heard about all the additional lights, and I'm sure that I missed something. But if there is anything else

[1:19:17] that needs to be brought to our attention. We will hear it in three minute segments. So if it's something other than that, go. Okay, Mr. Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I want to congratulate or express my appreciation to John James and Dean Damber for the professionalism in which they conducted our negotiations. And I also would state that I did not represent that I speak for everybody against short-term rentals. Genan doesn't speak for everybody that's in favor of them. And John James doesn't speak entirely for your staff. And as a lawyer, if you've reached an agreement and everybody's a little upset with it, that normally means you'd have a good settlement agreement. Now, I point to this, that most of you older folks here in San Angelo remember the sign ordinance. Many years ago, it's something that came out of the left field, blue sky, had everybody at each other's throats, it consumed the city council for a better part of a year, divided families, friends, and it had the same issues, property rights versus quality of life issues, same issues we have here. And so we need to proceed cautiously so that we don't find ourselves back into that situation. Now, as we look at the proposed ordinance, the first question we have to ask ourselves is what type of short-term realms if we're going to allow them, do we want to encourage? We want to encourage a short-term rental, like a motel room, where you check it in, maybe spend the night, maybe have some friends over a supper or a drink, or do we allow a party house? It was 30 or 40 people showing up and partying to the wee hours of the night. And I submit that I suspect each member of this council, it would be against throwing the city wide open to party houses. And if we're against that, then I think you'll find most of the terms that we have agreed to And this proposed ordinance would work well. There are several points I want to make. One is city staff had some questions about the 500 feet

[1:21:17] within a closer to another short-term rental. And whether that's fair. But you already have things like that. You can't put a liquor store closer than 1,000 feet from a school or church. And so we have in our ordinances prohibitions against the use of your property if it's closer to another institution. And actually, the city of Austin has 1,000 feet. And so that 500 feet was a compromise. And the purpose of that was to keep having a big bunch of short-term realms around a single family residence. And same with the 30-foot street. You're going to have people parked in the street, and you can't get a fire truck or ambulance in if it's that short-term. And so I think those, the only thing that we felt out with on the city staff was whether it should be a conditional use special use. And what we submit that you really ought to make in residential areas, the permit may be a special use. The reason why I say this is your own ordinances set out the criteria in conditional use and special use. And the only difference, and the difference that requires a special use, is if there is an issue of traffic. Your own rules you've set up says if there's an issue of traffic, it has to be a special use of permit. And so I submit to you that I adopt this, but we need to change the bill in residential areas from conditional use, special use, so it complies with the own rules that you have sent up. If you need to continue talking, Mr. Gossett, I would allow for you to. That's pretty much my comment. I think we've worked this out and hopefully we can, and one of the comment is if we enact some kind of short-term rental and we have real tough restrictions on it. You can always increase those later if you wish to do so. But if we throw the city open and have no restrictions and limitations, you're never going to be able to cut it back down. And this short-term rentals is a new business model. I see conflicts in different cities over them for different issues. And so society is still going through and working these things out. And

[1:23:23] so I submit to you if we could, if we're going to have a short-term rental, let's put some real good restrictions and then if you want to enlarge them later you can do so but you can't ever come back. Are you in agreement with this this as it is written. I can say it not everybody on my side to bring with all of the video but pretty much otherwise thank you. Thank you Mr. Gossett. Mayor yes sir. I just wanted to make a clarifying statement I'd mentioned that we might could do it during the mayoral runoff. That would not be possible without the office of the governor's approval so that's probably unlikely. Most likely it would have to be held during a uniform election so it would either be May or it would all be all the way in November. So I just want to make make you aware of that which if it is in November would give us allow us for the opportunity to budget for that election as well. And then in during the break I also was asked to clarify a couple of items. The there was some question on whether or not the city council could put this to a vote instead of voting yourselves. That is not possible under our charter so I just wanted to speak to that. I know most of y'all know that but I wanted to make sure the the public knew about that as well and then if there is a referendum or initiating committee when they come they have to bring an ordinance they can't bring direction to the council to put together an ordinance they've got to bring an ordinance for vote by the public. Very well thank you for the clarification. Do I have other public comment on this item? Please step to the microphone and state your name. Yes ma'am. Can we come back with the original ordinance that's on the books and I'll make a statement while they're figuring

[1:25:28] that out. What is disturbing, I live in a very strong homeowners association, what is disturbing about this is, and I see that it's a kind of a command across the nation so we're not, we're not unique in that, but that a majority of the people are probably against this and that y'all are listening to a very small minority that wants an ordinance change that's been on the books that we haven't had trouble with for years. So that's just a statement and the answer is you can bring any any ordinance that you want to as an initiative. Okay. I also request that we can can you get us a memo regarding I guess it depends on your vote today doesn't it? Can I request a memo to our for reference about what our requirements would be? I can I can send that email actually send it earlier this week to okay okay we can come back with the same we can come would you would you put that in writing for us that we kind of have a point of reference. I mean it can be a lot of our group is not here today and so does something that we can be any ordinance that you want I can certainly provide okay thank you thank you ma'am and it's just out of the charter so it's not a problem. Yes I have that ready for anybody that wants to leave their email address just meet me afterwards and I can get that to you. Yes ma'am. Good morning, my name is Arlon Frong and I'm a post to SDRs. I fought against them and I will continue to oppose them because it is severely impacted the quality of my

[1:27:28] life for 10 years. But my master plan was if it passes, I want to turn my into an SDR. I'll move into town because they don't feel safe in my own home and I'd be able to use my property as an income and that would be very helpful for me. I live within 500 feet of another STR. So I object to the provision that would limit the competition. You're telling me I can't do what I want with my property and they can. That doesn't feel fair. Thank you for considering that. Solver on different sides, but I it's good to see you ma'am. Thank you of the comment While listening to Harry's Statement I it occurred to me that the problems that we're having the parking the partying are from large groups and The funeral you mentioned funerals and reunions a lot of times that towns have a community center, a community hall for it to handle such things like this, you know, where you can make a large parking lot, you don't have problems, it's not in your neighborhood, and yet it's close to the neighborhood or usually around a park or something like that. I know it's a building project and I'm not advocating that it'd be done tomorrow, but maybe put on the I talked to Carl, why, he says that they're the only buildings that we have, and I just

[1:29:29] hit him off on the side there, and he wasn't caught him off guard probably, but he said the only thing he came up with was really the fort, and are using things like that, and so, but That's a large building, I don't think that a large building is necessary for all situations, but over by the lake, nothing was told to me that you have anything at all in the way that could handle a group wanting to put on a festive situation or have a reunion or anything like that. So something that might be involved in your considerations of the future would be putting in communities that way community halls where you could get this problem out of your neighborhood And back into a common area that wouldn't cause as much trouble. And you could handle it a little better. It's for clarification, Mayor. We have Pecan Pavilion out at the lake that the city owns and leases. We have a reunion every year at one of the church camps out there. And there's three church camps right there in the road. So there's a lot of different areas out there there. They're private? They're private, they can be leased. The city one is once police. OK, is it fully walled? Is it just? We're getting a little off the agenda at this point. We can have this discussion a little later, Tom. Thank you. Heard the lawyer. I do. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good morning, ma'am. Good morning. I'm June Bell. I live at the lake. And I lived next door to two short-term rentals. They are no longer operating. However, once you've lived next door to two, then you really finally get it.

[1:31:29] And they sound like a great idea until you live next door. You talk about property rights. What about my property rights? My home, I bought in a residential area, not in a circus area. When you start bringing in two homes with short-term rentals, you have on the referendum, you know, no more than 20 people. Well, if you have two next door, it's one weekend, that's 40 people. That's a lot of cars. I shared with you pictures of my street. There's no curbs on the streets at Lake Nazworthy. where I live. So they're parking in my yard, grass that I pay to mow, that I water, then they start parking off a little further, a little further. And when you have a large group, then it just gets worse. It just multiplies. It's also what I need to remind you is we all enjoy going to a short-term rental someplace or renting it or going to the fourth of July at the lake. But what you need to understand is with short-term rentals, it's not once a year, it's constant. It can be seven days a week, and it can be two different groups. One group comes in on Thursday leave on Sunday, another group on Monday, it's constant turmoil and turnover. To the point where, you know, my grandchildren, I don't really let them ride their bikes. You know, I don't like them out in the front yard. too much traffic, you know, too many strangers. So that starts to infringe on my property rights in an area that is was owned residential. I don't really understand why those are allowed in a residential area. What happened to that, protecting my property rights? The parking, all of the restrictions that they have listed, they're very reasonable. They probably should be more restrictive, but I know I'm

[1:33:33] not in favor of them, but I would ask you to consider, you know, what about my property rights? It's not just about theirs. What about mine? And what about if you lived next door? And if someone wanted to buy the lot next door to you and put in an RV park or put in a camping spot, it's own residential. Would you allow that? what the difference? Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Good morning. My name is Randall Scotty and there's a couple of things that I would like to touch base on. I am in agreement with Lane that I believe that this should go out in the form of a referendum ballot if we're going to consider this at all. all. I stand here against short-term rentals and against this ordinance. I do agree with a couple of things that the mayor had to say. I do believe in property rights and as you indicated on a different subject earlier today, we have a certain set of rules and regulations that we came in and bought our property under. Okay? Now, we made that investment with the understanding that those rules and regulations would be there to protect probably our largest investment, our home. Now, the short term rentals came into existence, I guess, illegally. And And now what they're asking is to make them legal. So what you're asking the majority of San Angelo to do is to give up their property rights for the people who were operating illegally, but now want to be legalized.

[1:35:35] That's not going to work for me. And that's probably the best reason to put this out for referendum. I fully support going out for a referendum. As you can see, we brought very few people here with us today. The reason for that is, is they feel the same way and did not want to get up here just as I'm not going to do and argue the merits or lack of this proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Randall. Next. Good morning. Good morning, Council. I'm Jeannie and Danbert and I am for STRs. I want to thank all of you for being here and coming together as one, as John James, myself, and Greg Gossett put together the ordinance that was proposed. We took both sides in consideration trying to recognize that all of us have property rights, not just one side or the other, but we all have property rights. We're trying to accommodate. We're trying to make this good for our city to bring in people. I just met with some city planners yesterday on opening up a business. And they said, if you can bring in 80% of out of town, yes, there's grant monies. We are trying to bring people in. And to alienate people from the lake, from staying in there and enjoying what we all enjoy, that's a crime. And especially, all of us have stayed at STRs, whether it be a bed and breakfast or a short-term rental. So we can't be hypocritical on, we don't want it next door to us. When we in fact stay at STRs,

[1:37:38] I trust and I believe my whole heart and soul that we can come together as united, as a group, as a community, as a city, to bring this, to make it a balance for everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Em. Good morning. Vivi Powell. And I'm in favor of short-term rentals. I know y'all are surprised to hear that. I've had mine for several years now. We've operated without problems. And the people, I would like to address the issue of people that say that most people are against this. I think that most people don't care. I mean, from what I've heard from people that I spoke to, they say, it's your property. You should be able to do what you want to. Given that, I understand that the neighbor of a short-term rental may have some problems with it. Sometimes you have problems with your neighbors in general, period, at least in a short-term rental, they're out of there pretty quickly. I think that this ordinance was drafted to address some of those issues. The city has worked hard. The people working on the ordinance worked hard. The now called apparently third representative that did not get represented. Their stance is they do not want short-term rentals, period, no ordinance, nothing. They do not want them. So in the spirit of reconciliation, they didn't have anything they needed to say besides get rid of them, period. And I don't agree with that. I would like to point out that the actionable ordinance

[1:39:39] says two parking spaces plus an additional space per separately rented bedroom. So if you have a three bedroom house, you would be required to have five parking spaces off-street. I would like to suggest that legally parked should be sufficient for any property, whether it's your home, my home, or my short-term rental. Thank you. Thank you, pal. John, you address that? Let me just clarify that that provision for two parking spaces plus one per separately rented bedroom only applies to bed and breakfast, so that would not apply to a short-term rental. under the extra public comment on the gym. Good morning. I'm Jim Turner. And it's interesting listening to this. That's a lot about property rights and trying to balance one property right against the other. And you've got a tough job. My main reason I'm up here is to kind of expand again on this whole initiative and referendum issue if that wants, if people want to do that. No matter how you vote today, if a group can come up with an alternate ordinance and get enough signatures, it has to go on the ballot. Your vote today doesn't affect that. So if somebody wants to take and do an initiative referendum for the May election, they got a short timeframe, but they can get it done, or get on a November election, they're not satisfied with the results of what happens up there. That's the reason that that whole section of city charter is there. At the same time, it's a really high threshold because you have to convince a lot of people that you didn't

[1:41:41] do the job they expected of you. And I know that you're going to do the best job you can. You're not going to satisfy everybody, but when I'm sitting on the ordinance here it looks like it's about a good a balance as you're likely to see this type of thing looking at other cities and the problems are having and so on this is very new we brought on by the internet and the way we can communicate you didn't have this before you couldn't do this just by mail and telephone calls so this is part of coming into the modern highly communication age good good luck with what you do and if somebody needs some advice and persistence I've worked with initially a preference in elections as well they can contact me if they don't feel comfortable working with staff thank you thank you Jim next good morning my name is Santa Martinez and I just want to thank each and every one of you all for the great work that each and every one of y'all have done and put in to try to make this happen. There's not a win-win situation, like you said. I really think we all just need to come together as a community and compromise. Tourism loves this city of St. Angelo. And it's really sad when they come and see that they're not welcomed. I don't think that's a great way of bringing in tourism to our city. And I really think there's a way that we can all communicate and compromise and not have one side or the other side when. Anyway, again, we just want to thank y'all for everything that each and everyone of y'all have done. Thanks again. Thank you, ma'am.

[1:43:46] Good morning. Good morning. My name is Holly Jet. My question is the ordinance and the little asterisks it applies that there was the 500 feet and the 30 feet they apply to pre-existing STRs. STRs are illegal, they have many legal, so how are they pre-existing? I don't know, that was my question. Like, okay, if they were legal until all this started, are they pre-existing to have to fall underneath this stipulation to the ordinance? That was my question. And that's a good question, John? you're right that is a good question the the answer really is this is a unique circumstance that is that is not usual in an ordinance to basically grandfather something that has been illegal prior to the ordinance again that was part of the compromise here that was that was worked out again it's not usual but I I don't believe that there is a, there's no problem doing it that way. I'd answer the question. What a good question. Well, there's also a clarify that pre-existing means they have to have been registered, in this case, with paying hotel tax as well. Correct, correct. If they've been operating not only in violation of city zoning, but not registered and paying hotel tax, and they do not get the benefit of that pre-existing status. I think you just answered the question there. Thank you. Next. Next. All right. I'm going to call public comment section of the agenda

[1:45:47] on this item to a close. Council, I need a motion one way or the other. Got a question? Yes, sir. For John. John, Vince's privacy, Vince's, they're not allowed at the lake or lots so close to the lake. Actually, I'm not familiar with those restrictions. I know that's not an uncommon restriction, I don't know if somebody else knows that. I think they can't be more than four feet high. the rules on the rear part because of the view of the water. I think there are some specific restrictions in that regard on the lake property as far as the heights go and how far they can extend back as to not block the view. We kind of treat the lake as your backyard as your front yard being the viewing of the water. Thank you. Are the questions from council? Have another one? Let's take one more. Good morning. Good morning council and mayor and City Manager to clarify the the feeling down from the record. You cannot have a privacy fence over four feet high. Let's get your name down for the record. I'm acting president of the HOA at Lake Nasworthy. You can't build a privacy fence over four feet high within 75 feet of the water. Also we can't have that binds or anything else growing above that four foot height. So that's basically, it's all been set up by y'all when we started. Thank you, Ted. I need a motion council. I'll make the motion, I wanna get this thing settled.

[1:47:47] I am tired of fighting this thing. I'm going to make the motion that we accept the changes and allow STRs with the restrictions that are posted that we accept this as it is written. need a second yes with the clarification that I mentioned earlier on 406 a1 that slot rewarding that I mentioned when I was going through the presentation and I will add the that I need a second okay it motion has been made it has been seconded or one second answer should we I was just wondering if we should consider, never mind, I was thinking about considering Ms. Bronx request. And then that may be, I appreciate what she said, she made a very good point there. What does the council think? You know, I can amend my motion. If you want to make it 200 foot. I think since everybody agreed, we want to keep the way it is. Anyone else think maybe that that 500 foot, maybe that should be changed is that something that would sway about one way or the other one sure God quite I'm gonna leave a motion just like it stands will you leave your second as it stands as presented there is a motion on the floor we need we need to either adopt this thing or kill this thing one way the other and as far as I'm concerned this will not come back in my opinion a we kill this once before it I thought it was dead and over and Charlotte brought it back so we're dealing with this again for the third time. I don't want to deal with this again. So I would like for this to be over. Whatever this vote is, that's what the vote is. It's said and done, and we can begin. If this fails, we'll begin to enforce the ordinance as it is written. If it passes, then we've got a brand new ordinance. And if

[1:49:50] the citizens don't like it, then they need to get their signatures, bring them to us according to the charter as it is written. And when they bring it to us, if it meets the charter requirements it will be placed for an election and the citizens San Angelo can decide on it that's and that is the that's the out that everyone in this city has toward any ordinance that we enact you've always got the charter you can always bring it up yes sir isn't this the first reading yeah that's what I was just about to clarify that it will have come for a second first reading and let come back in January I guess we'll fight this battle four times any other The motion has been made. It has been seconded. I'm going to call for the vote. All in favor of accepting this as presented, please say no. All in favor of accepting this as presented, raise your hand. That's four four. Raise your hand if you oppose it. It is a four three vote this passes. And we're moving on to the next item. Item D is consider awarding FS0617 asphalt paving and recycling equipment to Angelo, Benedetti, and co-operated in an amount of $1,200,000 budgeted in FY17 for the purchase of one system and authorizing the city manager or designee to execute any related documents. Shane Kelton, you have the floor, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Glad to be here this morning. We, as you know, we did a street service a while back and we found that our streets are in poor condition, like everybody thought they were and so even Bell Street and so and as we know it came back the price tag to bring even our pavement condition index score up to the level of 75 which is kind of an industry

[1:51:51] kind of standard across the board that's that's fairly smooth a smooth ride that it's a it's It's a livable street, it's something that's not too bad out there. It's going to take approximately about 500 million. Well, I mean, we're realist out here. We know that we don't have 500 million to do this. And so staff started looking at other options that we have available to us that are out there that maybe are nontraditional kind of ways to get out there and do something to our streets that's really meaningful. So, what we found was an asphalt recycler. And we're gonna go through the process here just a little bit, just so you can actually see what we're talking about. And basically it consists of a pre-heater and then a machine that'll actually get the material, bring it up into the machine, run it through a processing plant, add rejuvenating holes back into the asphalt, and then lay it back down on the backside of it. and put it on back, and it looks like a brand new street when it comes out on the other side. So just quickly kind of go through the process here. You can see, and this is the machine that we'll be looking at. We actually, the city manager, myself, Patrick, and my Paul Hathaway Street Bridge Superintendent, actually went up to the manufacturing facility up in Cleveland. We actually looked at this machine right here as it was being finished, being built, and we looked at it, and this is the machine right here actually operating but you can see here in the front we have the pre-heater which actually heats the asphalt up to 350 to 400 degrees and then of course here in the back you have the actual machine that actually picks the existing asphalt on the street picks it up runs it to the plant and then puts it back down and so just and one of the neat things about this process and this process and the benedetes these were the benedetes were a construction company

[1:53:53] for years and years. And they developed this process, this specific process, and actually hold 17 patents on this machine right here. And this one is really designed, and it really works well in an urbanized setting, like what we have here in town. And so the entire working length of this process is about 200 feet. So that's all the work zone that we really need, will need to do this process. and as you go along again this is just the video and I'm gonna just it's not really exciting I'm sorry but I just kind of want to show you all the process and and we'll watch this video real quick and that way you'll kind of see the machine see what it does and show a couple more pictures again it doesn't move real fast but it is very effective you can see it as it's starting to middle up the street and bring all the material, the heated material, existing heated asphalt material into its plant, going through the plant there, then going into a traditional lay down screed in the back, and that's the reclaimed recycled street in the back. Looks like brand-new freshly laid asphalt coming coming out of the back of the machine. So, again, it's not a new process, but it's a process that they developed over the years. And finally, they decided that there was a demand for this machine. So the Ben and Detties kind of got out of the contracting business and went into the manufacturing business. These machines have only been available since 2008, and of course, as everybody knows, with the economic conditions. There weren't a whole lot of communities that had the money to run right out there

[1:55:53] and and to purchase one of these. So there's not a lot of them out there, but what they have done has been very impressive. You can kind of see the difference here looking at this. You can see what the existing street looked like with all the cracking, some running in there, and then what it looks like after this machine has gone through and processed it. So you can kind of see what it it does. And this isn't something that's going to fix all streets in town. You know, it's not going to fix Bell Street. I don't care how many times I've tried to run it over. It is not going to fix Bell Street. So it's going to, this is one of those that it's a process anywhere that we have millen overlay projects that we have scheduled or we know these roads need millen overlay projects. This is what this process will take the place up. And when we start looking at that, you know, in our kind of what we've lined out just in the bond funding that we've initiated over the next 10 years, we have about of the 80 million, a little over 20 million of that, is scheduled for milling overlay. So we believe with this process, we can take those funds that we can free up those funds and actually apply them further into the streets and get further into our list of streets that actually need total reconstruction. And we can use this as a rehabilitation process instead of the more traditional milling overlay. Again, this is, and this one last kind of picture here just to kind of show you, we, when we went up there to look at this machine and we looked at the streets that they had done up there with this machine and versus the, the millin overlay, you can see on the one side of the street where it was traditional, traditional millin overlay, you can look on the other side of that line and that's the recycled asphalt, you can't tell the difference. I mean the two processes after four years and this is after four years, both processes look identical, so I mean it's one of those things, we believe this is something that can really help us progress our streets and the shape our streets are in as we move forward. Talking about the cost, we're looking

[1:58:00] at $1.2 million, it's a lot of money for a piece of equipment, it is. But when we look at this the cost of this process versus the cost of traditional millen overlay processes which is basically the same rehabilitation process we have the cost of this is going to be roughly about five dollars square yard for this new process versus a traditional millen overlay process the last bit we got in we're coming in around twenty five dollars a square yard so if you look at that price differential and the amount of of what this machine can do you're looking between the price differential and how much we believe we can accomplish once we become proficient in this we're looking to be able to you know you're looking at a return on your investment in the 45 to 60-day range that's that's how much price differential you have between the two processes that you come out with close to the same product will the new product be exactly like a milling up, layout, mill, and overlay project? No, it will not. We are going to have, you know, it's going to be mixing in some different types of coal patches and some different types of materials so it's not going to be as consistent if we got a brand new product out of the out of a plant. But it's going to be one of those that for the for the cost differential between the two processes, you're going to have a product that is very, very similar to a brand new milling overlay. and it's going to give us many years of an extended life on our existing roadways. And so, again, we believe this is an excellent and excellent product for us to move forward with. We also want to let you know Mr. Benedetti in his bed packet when he sent it down to us. He did offer us after 18 months of buyback option on this piece of equipment based on, of course, based on usage and time and stuff like that. So if for some reason we get the machine down here and we find that we just can't make it work in our situation and work for us which we believe we can,

[2:00:04] he will buy the machine back as well too. What's the approximate time to come for proficient? He will when they when they deliver the machine he's going to bring down his crew and they're going to stay down here with us and train us on this machine for about 30 to 40 days, whatever he said whatever it's going to take for us to feel very comfortable with this machine in different application settings to make sure that we don't have any questions and our men are comfortable running it. So I would hope that within 60 to 90 days that we are we're able to run it proficiently and that within our guys know the machine inside and out and we're it's basically non-stop. one of the things this machine we believe that we can run it down here it's mostly been up in the north north country northern United States and in Canada where a lot of the this this machine was kind of originated from and so they have a very short window of time frame that they can use this machine but down here in the southern United States we believe that we can probably run this thing ten or eleven months out of the year and it's you know if as long as the temperature outside is above 45 we can run this machine so we believe that we can get a lot of good out of it and kind of using that same time frame it it you know one one would have if everything goes the way we think it will we can probably cover every street that we believe this machine will work on with intent to eleven years I do want to point out that one thing that he did expresses the machine itself is a very simplified machine it doesn't have a a lot of computers. We don't need computer programmers to run the machine. So as far as the training process itself, the learning curve is going to be rather small. So again, that's one part of the equipment I really appreciate it. It's a real quick comment from somebody that's been an accountant for a number of years, and

[2:02:04] I told Shane this yesterday, the payback on this is absolutely phenomenal. You don't see this on most types of equipment so when you look at 45 to 60 or even 90 days you're way way ahead of the curve the amount of money that this will save the citizens and the taxpayers is astronomical. You're waiting Charlotte you're next. I thought we were supposed to be recognized I want to stop being quiet. Shane you said all we will need to do is add oil to the mixture that they dig up the asphalt that they dig up how much oil and what kind of oil it's a it's a it's a special blend of oils that go back into it it's called it's a rejuvenating it's just rejuvenating oils that go back into it and a tenth of a tenth of a gallon per square yard it's very it's very minimal and actually you answered my question as long as you know how much oil that you're going to have to have for maintenance or to do the job and that you price that in there I'm I'm 100 percent we have we have run we have run numbers and we've crunched numbers because again It was one of those things when we first look at this it has to be it's too good to be true So what's wrong with it? And so please tell the public how you plan to pay for it We were actually going to use the bond funding that was that we set aside in the first bond issue We're actually going to use those funds and actually instead of contracting the millen overlay project on one of the projects will take those funds to purchase this machine. This machine will do that work that we were intended to do millen overlay process with. I've never been so happy and excited to spend 1.2 million dollars ever since you showed me this machine the first week after I was elected. I went in and showed Shane some issues in my district and they Patrick and Shane looked at each other and said Ben and

[2:04:07] that he could do that very well. And was like, what is the benedetti and he showed me? And I've been hassling him to bring us to council and get this thing here ever since then. But I got to correct you on one thing. It's 51 weeks out of the 52 that we could probably use it. That's 45 degrees. It's the 45 degree threshold too, that's great. So I'm excited. I've been all for this. I'm also excited about it because you know, as far as we've all campaigned, it's always been about streets and water. So I think investing our money into this machine is going to help us keep maintaining, keep our streets in good condition. So I'm excited about that too. We're tackling streets of water on one day here. Yeah. Well, the one thing that you didn't mention that I like about the whole deal, you're not at the mercy of outside sources contractors is when they can get us in to do one of the job because you're scheduling, you're controlling. I will get my heavy equipment license just so I can come and operate it one day. You say you come and operate it? It come, it's Marty. Oh, I'm over-pro. Thank you. Thank you. I'll take lanes. Vail, do you have anything? I just like to thank staff for looking into this and one of the things that I mentioned before was that the staff needs to look at the efficiency And this is wonderful. I think so, it's a great investment for us. And it'll free up some of that street money. Maybe you can build a sidewalk on my street. Good day. Good day. You know, I remember back in the late 80s, when we began to sell our road equipment and laying off our crews, and privatization was cheaper until that last auction. And then it went up. And for the last couple of years, we've been adding a little bit of equipment back in crews as we were able. And I think that the most fascinating fascinating about this machine is that the man that

[2:06:09] built this thing and designed it is a company that was in the paving business. And they built a machine that he used from parts that were readily available. They're not special parts, they're not complex parts, but he has bought parts that we also can get readily. It's not complex, it's not computer driven, but it is a machine that is designed by an individual that actually did the work. It's not designed by an engineer, it's designed by someone that does this type of work. And I think this is an excellent, excellent investment for our city. And I think it fulfills a lot of campaign promises that we have made. We're gonna fix our streets and we're gonna do it in the most economical way possible. And this is it. I do have a motion to approve and a second. If I have no further comment from council, I'll open it up to public comment. Anyone wish to speak to or for or against? Yes, sir. I just want to express my gratitude again for Shane and Patrick for researching this. We are responsible for stretching the public dollar, and this is one example of doing that. Definitely challenge all the departments as I always have to do the same thing. And we'll continue to looking for ways to making that money, to stretching that money and making these projects more feasible. It is a tremendous project, as far as all the streets that need to be done, and we do feel very strongly that this machine will help us achieve that. So again, thanks Shane, thanks Patrick, I appreciate you. Might also add that on this contract, he also offered us a bumper to bumper warranty on this thing for, I don't remember the time on it, there was a bumper to bumper to warranty. He also offered to bring his cruise down here and train us, and now understand he also offered us some type of a buyback if it simply is not right. So, we do that buyback like three times. did you have something like I do for as much luck as they get Patrick and chain firm handling the trash in the past and they bring this to council I think they

[2:08:09] deserve a round of applause for the work that they have done thank y'all I do have a motion we've had council discussion we've opened it up public comment it's now Now time to call for the vote. All in favor of buying this $1.2 million paving machine and putting it to work immediately, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Put a 7-0 on it. Thanks, Shane. Item number E is consider approving the parks and recreation advisory board's recommendation to amend the park revenue renovation plan funded by 4B half-cent sales tax revenue, Carl White. As we're asking for council's consideration of a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommendation concerning 4B, half-cent sales tax that's been allocated for park improvements. We established a plan to spend those monies on park improvements starting back in 2004. That plan was changed in 2010, and we're asking for council's consideration to amend that renovation plan one more time. Most of this work is done by in-house crews, And some examples of the projects that we've done with this money, four-by-half-cent sales taxes, we renovated Metal Creek Park, very successful project. We just renovated Brantford Park. We started the process to renovate Brantwood Park. We've also added magnetic locks on most of the restrooms at the parks. We also installed a central control system for the irrigation system so we can control those centrally and automated. And we also shifted some of that money over to serve as matching money for the Reda Roy Trail project a few years ago, and that was the last amendment to this plan. Currently there's about $600,000 left. The current plan is to go in and renovate Redwood Park, which I mentioned we have started that process. We had the second public meeting last night

[2:10:11] with the neighborhood, then go in and renovate Brown Park and then go in and renovate Santa Rita Park. Now these figures are all based on estimates that we made back in 2004, based on the size of the park, the acreage of the park, and what that park had in terms of facilities. The proposed plan is to go ahead and do Brentwood Park renovation and then shift the money from Brown Park to Unidad Park, also known as College Hills Park, that would be 175,000. Now to do the project, we're not talking a complete renovation of Unidad Park, we're We're talking refurbishment of the playground area, which is fairly extensive. And it's been designed to serve more for accessibility. It's got the poured-in-place material for the falls-on material for the playground, which is high-end and very accessible. And it's got a very extensive playground. So it will cost about $300,000 to redo the poured-in-place material and refurbish the playground, And then another $50,000 to renovate the trail that's at the park and do some other minor improvements. It doesn't need a full renovation. So we're going to have to match that $175,000, stretch those dollars with local grants and other fundraising. So we would have some time about a year and a half to achieve that, which is achievable. And then the risk of the money we would put towards Santa Rita Park and Brown Park renovations. Some justifications for this. You know that park, as you know, is very well utilized. It's very popular. It's also home for several events, particularly the Children's Fair. And now that the Reddit Warrior Trail has been built adjacent to it, it's even more used. The playground is in deteriorating condition. Now, the playground itself is in fair condition. We keep it maintained. But the fall zone material is what is really in deteriorating condition. And I'll show pictures of that in a second.

[2:12:11] Brown Park is smaller. It's much less used compared to United Park. And we have done some improvements at Brown Park, particularly since the drought. We lost some turf. And we went ahead and got the irrigation system going again and re-established some turf at that park. And what's left to be done at Brown Park really won't take as much money to renovate some repairs to the walking trail, some refurbishment of the court, And maybe a smaller playground. And of course, there's an option to retain some of that money, the $175,000, to do some of those things that are needed at Brown Park. Just a quick orientation. Redwood Park is on the northwest side of town. It's near Cornerstone School, Jefferson on this end, and Howard on this end. It's a very long park. It's a very beautiful park. It's used for youth practices. There's this golf course there, and it's got some nice topography there. Brown Park is much smaller, it's off Johnson Street, on the western portion of Santa Rita neighborhood. It's got an open area, a tennis court. We've also converted one of the courts to pickleball, and it's got a walking trail. Then this is an older Google Earth image of Utidad Park, but the large playground here, the walking trail around and it's now connected to the right of where you trail. See, you can see here the port and place materials that rubberized surfacing, it's really accessible. It's, we try to keep it up as best we can, but it's just, it's 20 years old now and it's really gotten to, dream hazard, trip hazard, very bad. It needs to be replaced. And it really doesn't make sense to go into a replace that falls on material without refurbishing the playground. And that just shows Santa Rita Park.

[2:14:16] So we're asking for your consideration of the advisor board's recommendation to shift money over from Brown Park to address the needs that needed at Park. Move to approve as presented. You have a move to approve as presented and a second. I do have one question though. We've been promising bathrooms the MLK Park for many years where where does this stand where does this project stand those the money that we have here are for park improvements and we've had the council plan to go ahead and dress these parks as we go along with those funds those restrooms are still in the capital improvement plan but are unfunded this at this time so each one we're talking about a hundred fifty $60,000 for each one so it's we could eat at that money pretty quick if we shifted money over to fund those restrooms from this money. So they're in the CIP but they're unfunded. I wouldn't get those funded. I mean those those those those restrooms have been gone for many many years and they've been asking for many many years. I don't know that what that's not a bigger problem than what this is is at Unidad Park or Brown Park. We'll have a strategic planning workshop in February. We'll discuss those capital items as well to see as far as prioritization, which ones go up, and which ones, well, I mean, we, of course, have limited funds, and we'll have to discuss that to determine exactly how that's going to be prioritized. But again, unless many... Well, we're changing priorities now, though. We're changing priorities from one park to another, and I don't have a problem with it. But I'm just saying if we're going to prioritize, We have other items other than these three parks that maybe we could prioritize it with as well. Where is MLK Park? Right there in 2030. No, no, no, I mean on the list, on his list, on your list of parks. This is projects that are funded with four

[2:16:17] be half set sales tax. So it doesn't include other projects, other park projects. So we can't use four be money. You could. At MLK. You could. Now, I wouldn't recommend doing that because you that park is heavily utilized, it's utilized even worn out of the Red or Roy Trail is there and it's deteriorating condition as you see here. And it's not, it's not like there's not Restroom Services at MLK Park. There were portable restrooms here at you that park for 16, 20 years and it recently got restrooms here because of the Red or Roy Trail project. Utilization of the youth, small children, grandparents with small children, and utilizing the facilities at Unidad, it's well worn, it's well used. With the introduction of the Red Arroya Trail, the added parking lots, they're full, just about all the time. The dog parks, I was out there one day last week. I would well but they're there the people there they've already brought their pets and they're using in the utilization of it and I have the occasion to go out to other parks. I'm simply going on the numbers of people that I see at the various facilities every day not a special occasion every day usage and it's it's quite heavy at this location. As far as the restrooms like at this facility we're staff season opportunity to try and leverage grant dollars or something since dollars have never been allocated for those that's that's what happened here at Unidad we saw a project that was coming forth there were grant dollars and opportunities for us to leverage that and make it happen so we watch for those on a regular basis if we see something like that that will fit one of the other I think we've had restroom requested at the fire spider park downtown there's

[2:18:17] various facility you know different ones we watch for those where there may be opportunities but right now as Carl said those are listed on the CIP for funding and as if council sees those as a higher priority you know as we have those dollars available we can certainly do. Well I guess really I would feel better about this since we're prioritizing and moving funds from one to another I feel better about it if maybe we took fifty thousand dollars of this money that we're reallocating and out reallocate fifty thousand dollars to the MLK restaurants. I know that's not enough but it is a start. We've got something started and then we can prioritize from there and if we find some other way that we can put more money. But these people have been asking for those restrooms. I know for 10, 12, 15 years. I'd like to really, if we're gonna start re-prioritizing our money, I'd like to, there's a need out there for restrooms. Question here and maybe Carl or Rick can answer this. If we take this $175,000 and move it to Unidad as opposed to the mayor's suggestion, then we're really leveraging $350,000 because we've got another $175,000 that we're getting in grants. Is that my understanding? It's correct. Okay if If that's the case, and I don't disagree with what Duane is saying, we really need to make sure that we start thinking about those other parks, specifically when prior councils have made some commitments, so we really need to think that there's a way that we can do that. I'm going to vote in favor of this based on what we have today, but I think we need to go back and take another look at where we can utilize dollars that will help us specifically where there's been a commitment made by prior councils. Okay. One is the cost of a porting pot for a year. The cost for porting pot is a

[2:20:23] year. Yeah. About twenty four twenty six hundred dollars. I know that the two or They're for Derek Lindmore Park, and that's why you love the park, and those portable parties are well used down there, I know that. We have portable restaurants that are a handful of parks. It's a cheaper option. Is there a portable party at the M.L.? There have been at M.L.K. Right. They used to have a permanent structure there that was there for years, and we tore it down about, oh man, it's been 10 or 15 years ago. three. Yeah, we tore down. It was 13 years ago. It was in poor condition. It was and it needed to be torn down. But when we tore that thing down, we had a commitment that we would, the way I remember it that we would replace it in the future when funds became available. And that's a long time ago and we've not done anything. And they've asked for it year after year after year. Yeah, and I agree. I mean sooner or later we have to you know need to follow through on our commitments yeah and if we're going to start reallocating money I think right now is a good time to at least put a put a third of that in a fund and let's get let's let's start following through on our commitments we've got a little go ahead the one thing I would caution counsel about is is keep in mind don't as you move funds around however you choose to move them make sure you don't set staff up for failure in that we don't have enough funds to cover anything and so it all just sets there and we really don't make any progress. So I don't disagree with picking what we want to do and making it happen. If that restroom is a priority, then I mean this is a priority then do this and then when we're in the budget cycle you may want to look at that as well. We have options there and it might can speak to that. We'll go through a process each year. But whatever you choose to do, make sure you don't spread it so thin that we just can't accomplish anything.

[2:22:23] I agree with that. And I don't remember we prioritizing this at an early, I know we've not been prioritizing this in so three. So I'm saying we've got needs out there that are older than this one. And if we're gonna start re-prioritizing our funds, let's put it on those that are the eldest, let's put it on those that have been waiting the longest time. And I can vote for this, if you'll put $50,000 of this money into a fund to start building a restroom fund for MLK. And then when we have our budgets next February, we'll talk about prioritizing and putting the other, what, $50,000 so we can get these restrooms built. But I think it's time to start, and I think it's time to start making our commitments. I will approve it if we'll put $50,000. I will vote to approve this if we put $50,000 into an MLK Restroom Fund. Otherwise, I'm gonna vote to leave it just like it is. That's fine. Also add that one of the things staff struggles with, and this is a prime example, and we brought this to you in budget cycles and so forth, is that while we allocate funds to build things sometimes, and we're good at getting grant dollars, San Angelo struggles with allocating money for maintenance. And this is one of those examples of a maintenance issue. So even when it comes to the restrooms, which I'm supportive of, we need to make sure if we build those, we're gonna allocate dollars to maintain them properly. So that whole plan and picture goes together. With the Unidat Park, how long has it been there now? 30 years? 20. 20 at least. And it's been very used. Very. And I don't recall any large funds of maintenance that I know of in the last 15 years. And it just doesn't seem prudent to me to invest in something, then walk away and expect it to last without maintaining. And we have a case that this park, or if it were another park, well used worn trip hazards. I would hate to see any kind of lawsuit against the city for lack of maintenance.

[2:24:25] And that's what this is, is lack of maintenance because of lack of funds is worn out. It has just been used that much. How long has Emile Kabe been there? You renovated it in 2003, 2004. You renovated it? Yes, sir. Orcs probably been there 50, 60 years better. Right, it's 60 years. It's old. Old park. Early 70s, yeah. Probably the WPA years, if I were guessing. It will go in field site. I need a motion somewhere, I guess. I want you to have a motion site. Oh, I'm done in a second. That's right. Motion to accept as presented and lane safety. You're right, that's right. Okay, we've got a motion on the floor that we accept this as presented and it has been seconded. I'm gonna vote it against it. And then if it fails, I'll make another motion, but that's the way we do things here. Any other comments from Council? Did you ever say whenever MLK was on the CIP, how far down? As far as the restroom's funding. And when it would be funded by, did you, I think, Lucy, did you see? In terms of timing, it's just engine on funding. OK. You have no funding. CIP has it listed, and then counsel chooses each year if they want to fund specific things off that list. OK. But right now, we have no money. And actually, that project was funded about five or six years ago with, I think it was, it was bond money, but it was shifted again to go back towards streets. So at one point, the restaurant projects were funded, but it was pulled. But we will have a prioritization, as I mentioned earlier, as far as the strategic plan in February, which we'll take a look at that as well. So it has been funded before, and then it was pulled. It was funded for, well, I'll be stronger in my position now. And I have to agree with mayor because like that that park is in my area and they have been waiting for a one time and that was before I even came around so I would like to see that I

[2:26:25] would like to follow through with something like that but to see it happen and that park is used as well it is very well used I agree with funding it but I agree with what Rick said is that don't set us up for failure if we stretch the money too far we can't we can't achieve what we need to get done I don't think We're setting anything. I don't think we're setting anything up for failure with $50,000 toward restrooms that we've been promising since 03. I think if we start a fund, then we'll be able to build upon that fund. I don't see that we're setting anything up for failure. I think we're just putting it in different pockets for different parks and streets. But we do have a motion on the floor, and we're going to have to handle that first. Let me ask this. Through the donations and the grants, can we try to stretch that as far as possible? If donations come in and it's looking like we can pay for the majority of it through that, we can look at it again later on and shift it back, whatever's left, we can go and start that fund. It's just the sales tax you're talking about shifting. Yeah, but if we are successful in getting a larger grant that will allow a less use of the general fund, or in this case, those dollars, then yes, those can be, we didn't use it all on the project, it goes back into the fund for use as you see fit. Mayor, in addition, the conversation about park usage and improvements is absolutely appropriate. And I think for that February priority setting session, regardless of what you do here, we need to address it. Councilman Richardson's been talking to me about parking issues at Glenmore and a sidewalk getting access there. So he sees high usage over in that park. And so a conversation about usage and what amenities or access issues are necessary at different parks is an appropriate conversation at some point. Well, I am going to vote against the motion that's on the floor

[2:28:26] and I'm voting against it for one reason because I want to remake the motion where we take $50,000 of this money and put it in a fund for MLK part bathrooms. That's the only sticking point that I've got. I don't have a problem with redoing the money, but I'm gonna hold out to get money for that part. We've been promising it long enough, and it's time we started putting a little money where our promises are. So I'm gonna oppose this vote for that reason. If it fails, I'll make another motion. If it passes, I've been beaten before. It's not a problem, but yes, sir. I wasn't gonna make a comment on this because I think it's pretty straightforward, But I have to ask this question. Bill brings up a point, but there are other parks in this community that we've got porta-potties in that probably should have full restrooms in. So MLK, that park over there is not the only one. We've got a lot of them. Let's take care of the ones that we can fix today. And if we can leverage the public money with private money, then I'm going to support that. And then let's sit down and take a look at where all these parks are with restrooms and see what we can do to do that. Any other comment from Council? Time for public comment, anyone which to weigh in on this one? What a call for the vote. The vote is been that we take this money and we apply it to Unidad Brown Park and what was the other Brentwood Park? Brett would you do that and then Santa Rita Brown. Okay. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. Nay. How many nays I've got? Just two. Got three nays so we got a four three so this proposal does pass by four three votes. Make it work Carl. Yes sir. We'll talk about this again in February. That's correct. Please. Let's see if it's considered authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a second

[2:30:28] amendment to the agreement for the management, in operation of Old Town at El Paseo de Santiago, to increase the managed area to allow for the construction of a small chapel designed by Oscar Rethini and to negotiate and execute all related documents. Carry further. Carry forward, Carl White. Yes, sir. Just a quick orientation to where we're talking about. This is Santa Fe Crossing, the Santa Fe Depot, here's Chabron Street, South Chabron Oak Street. This is Avenue A, the municipal pool in the art museum. So Old Town currently is in this box here, it's drawn in yellow. So the proposed area that we're looking at, adding as an amendment to the agreement with Old Town Conservancy is this triangle here, where it says proposed chapel site. As I mentioned, we do have an existing agreement with Old Town Conservancy. We had an agreement, it was amended once, The amendment included an extension to that agreement. It expires in 2032. There is a one option to renew for additional 10 years. We do have a proposal from Old Town Conservancy to include a small chapel designed by Oscar Refini to be incorporated into Old Town. The situation, there's not any space in the existing footprint of the leased property to include that chapel. So we're trying to find a home for it. So, the situation is we also have an area where we've funded to, we purchased the property abated and demolished the old carrier building so that we can construct some additional parking to serve that area, particularly the Santa Fe crossing area and the senior centers. So, that work is proceeding. We can't proceed with that until we get consideration from City Council if you want to amend old town's agreement to include the chapel so that we can finish the design of that parking lot.

[2:32:28] Our recommendation is that we do amend that agreement so we can allow the chapel to be constructed on this site. Let me look forward a little bit closer. So here is the property that we acquired to build the parking lot. There's some parking here now that serves the senior centers. This building was acquired and was demolished And we'll be constructed as a parking area. That project is funding. There's still about $90,000 to do that project. The tip of this property is a triangle, just looking back here, trying to find a home for the chapel, the small building. Old town is kind of linear. We looked at here, placing it here at the Paseo. It was really too close. Didn't really fit the site. and it was right there in the middle of the Passeria where the walkway was, and it didn't really seem to work. And the only other property that we owned other than behind the old town was this property. So it kind of made sense to place the chapel there, facing the old town, so it can be incorporated all into one site. So that's how this chapel would look generally sitting on that site. We estimate we would lose maybe about six spaces, no more than nine spaces if we incorporate the chapel here. But it would definitely complement that site very well. Here's what the chapel looks like from looking from the east, looking west, looking from the south, and then looking from the north. I think it's really cute. I think it will complement old town very well. Barbara Hessey and Mary Sanderson with the Old Town Conservancy are here. If you have any questions about Old Town. And we recommend that we amend the agreement to include this triangular space that I showed you so that they can construct the Oscar Refania design chapel on that spot.

[2:34:31] I also add, Carl, that all of the construction part for the building and so forth, Old Town Conservancy has been very good at managing our property for us. They keep those buildings out there rented, leased, and maintained. And so they have managed their funds well. And so this construction will be out of those dollars. They're not asking for additional dollars from the city. They're very good stewards of that resource for us. Questions, Council? Move to approval is presented. We'll give you the second and give Harry. Harry started talking first. And we'll leave him the most and give you the second. And just because Margaret Mallard is not here to speak for herself, I will speak for her. She approached me with this five or six years ago. And I thought it was a wonderful idea then as part of our history. Oscar Raffini is part of our history. I think this is a wonderful, wonderful tribute to Margaret, because she fought hard for this. And I am certainly gonna vote with this thing, make this a reality. Do I have any further comments from Council? Do I have any public comment on this? We'll call for the vote. And the vote is to take this triangle, build this Oscar Raffini design chapel and put it right there across from Old Town and be part of our history. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Put a 7-0 on it, Brian. Item number G is first reading and public hearing on an ordinance closing the public hearing on the proposal to assess the budding property and owners for improvements to the northwest one-half of Twin Mountain Drive between April Street and Terron Street, assessing the cost of constructing such improvements accordance with Article 4.08 of the City Code of Ordinances, dividing the time, terms, and conditions of payment and default of such assessment and prescribing the rate of interest their own. Russell Fail, you have the floor, sir. All right. Thank you, Mr. Morrison. I did bring this to y'all back in or the first meeting in November. But just to remind you, this location is on Twin

[2:36:35] Mountain Drive between April and Tarrant Street. it's just kind of a general overview of the area. Here's the subject property. Loop 306 is up to the north. Knickerbocker road's over here to the east. This is just pictures looking at the area and how it's set up right now. We currently have it coned off to direct traffic around the affected area. This is looking to the west along Twin Mountain Drive. This is another photo looking down Twin Mountain Drive as well looking back to the east. just to give you a picture of what's going on out there today. Again, Twin Mountain Drive is classified as a minor arterial, which requires 80 foot of right-of-way and 64 feet of pavement. This current section currently has 32 feet of pavement and possesses of safety issues which we discuss in the November meeting. Again, the assessment process includes, you know, the owner is responsible for up to of the estimated construction costs, which we established in the November meeting as $75,000 or a little over $75,000. Nine tenths of that is $67,821. The City of San Angelo would be responsible for paying for these improvements up front. And the proposed funding source is using our street capital funds. Part of the requirements for the assessment process was for us to publicist in the newspaper which we did for three consecutive weeks in the Standard times We also notified the owner officially Today what we're looking for is we need to establish the actual assessment amount

[2:38:36] Establish the interest rate the maximum interest rate that we could charge at this point would be two point one seven eight which is our current interest on our general obligation bonds, or it could be less or nothing. And then also we need to establish the payment schedule. You know a couple examples that I have is we could either pay lump sum within x days or establish a monthly payment for x months after the work is completed and accepted by the city of San Angelo, but there again those are just two examples we can those are in for improvement. With that let's I guess what I'll leave it up to you. This is your area shortly. Yes this is the one that we brought in November where the contractor appeared before us. This is a headache that he inherited when he purchased a previous bankrupt situation and it fell on his shoulders inherited. So, as I recall, we approved to move forward and we, Theresa, correct me if I'm wrong, but we approved to take this procedure for legal reasons so that we would have the right to collect as these lots so that we had to take this step. So, I moved to approve, I do not agree with the lump sum payment that we want to work work. Right. That's what we need to establish today. Yeah. I wanted to work with the developer as we, only we indicated to him that we would work with him to pay out on this as the area sold and grew up. And that would be my recommendation. And before we get too far along, I also failed to mention we made one minor change to this amendment or to this ordinance and I brought that here with me and I need to pass that out

[2:40:41] before we get too far along. As I remember, he was not really excited about adding $67,000 to the cost of his property. Am I right? No, he wasn't. I didn't think he was, and I don't really blame him. I don't blame him at all. He here? Yeah, Dennis here. Okay. to let him talk to us. I wonder if he's excited about it today. No, I don't think so. Good morning, sir. My name's Daniel Guaro. At this time first, before I make my case, I'd like to let Austin talk to y'all. He's got some points about the area because he lives in the development. And if I, yourself, sir, and you have the floor. Hello, ladies and gentlemen of the council. I was just coming before you. I'm Austin Guaro. I kind of have a dual purpose role here today, a compound role, if you will. I'm not only a member of Sierra Vista construction, but I'm also resident in the area. I've lived in actually two sections of the area. The area is comprised of two primary developments. One consists of the Baker Ranch Homestead Sound Club community, and the other one is the Trinity West community, which we're currently discussing today. I lived on Blair Lane within the Baker Ranch section of development and was able to see the barricades go up to redirect traffic. The biggest issue came about whenever these barricades went up. For several years, this whole development was outlined without any sort of direction in traffic.

[2:42:41] it flowed fairly well, but once these went up, the safety hazard was presented even more so. So I imagine there was a complaint of some sort that decided to put barricades up, which is fine, but what I'd be interested in finding out is what now is out there, what sort of complaints came about even more so due to the barricades, with limiting barricades make an effort in alleviating some of the congestion within that area. I'm all for safety, of course, being the resident of the area. I want the area to be safe, I don't want accidents, I don't want anybody to have to do with any issues. It's just, we purchased this land as an investment in our future, our company's future, under foreclosure, a previous developer had intentions for it, and we just went along with what the previous developer had in mind with hopes that maybe we can make it work further. We had a two-year plan initially. We were going to develop this entire community within two years, but with the changes in the economy, we were unable to do so. We won't put all the stress on the economy, some of it has to go on us as a business owner in developing the area. Lot size has been a little bit of an issue. We've been looking at that street in different ways. Maybe there's ways of modifying those lots in order to do better in the area. One reason why I bring that to your attention is because we've done some larger lots within that area that have done better. So from a financial standpoint, we look at perhaps even a cul-de-sac through that area would be better. Instead of having to go through there, that way we can make the lots larger and develop more, or to promise more return on the area.

[2:44:43] The usage of the street is another issue that I see with it. We have about 18 lots that are defined in that area that's along the Merrick Street and Twin Mountain Drive intersection, 18 lots versus the hundreds of lots that are bound to benefit from this. This development and the intersection there. I do not think it's fair that nine-tenths of the cost is being assessed to us. The guy that just happens to own the land there. Would this be so if somebody just owned a lot and had other intentions for it? Or is this just because we're a small business and happen to be impacted by them? $67,000 after the nine-tenths, Of course, there's a lot of money. I mean, that's a big chunk of our business here that can impact us. That could be the difference between a small business that came from St. Angelo going under or staying afloat. So in conclusion, I just want to adjust an equitable solution for all. I want it to be safe. I just want to rely on your outcomes. Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I know that I was opposed last time about you paying 9.10. I think I made that very clear that I'm opposed to that at all. And you have 18 lots along this thoroughfare. And there are a couple of hundred that are served that are already existing. So by previous developers out in the area. Yes. So I have to ask you what you feel is fair. We'll based off of the numbers that we ran when we did turn straight into the entrance of Twin Mountains was less of 50,000 and at that percentage the reason

[2:46:48] we got such a deal in that time is what you're what you're asking today is the city to move forward and create a street therefore when contractors bet on something as small as this the cost is gonna be substantial. I mean it's gonna be a high increase. When we come in to them and ask them that we want to develop Merrick Street and Twin Mountains, you get a better cost base. Everything comes out at a really fair cost to where you can put it towards the lots and it's not gonna over, I'm sorry, it's not gonna inflate the home to be out of proportion. As Austin brought to your attention, we've struggled in that area today. You can pull my permits, you can pull my sales history there, and in the past four years we have 20 lots in the first section, 18 lots in the second section, and this supposedly 18 lots that are in the future. We've only sold 14 houses out of that whole area in the last three years. So it has been very hard and very impact on us to try to keep moving forward and even just create houses on Terrence Street alone. There's over 14 lots available on Terrence Street still to be built out. We have three houses that that we started this year for next year to see if we could get some movement and nothing's happened in those houses. One is already complete and it's been sitting there for technically four, five, now almost six months. The second one has been there prior to that for a year. The third one, we're trying to third one. We're trying to create business and we have no luck on it right now.

[2:48:48] It's in the metal construction will be finished probably in about two months per minute and whether that's us. It was brought to my attention, our cost on that basis, like I said, was anywhere from 36,000 to less of 50,000 depending on what numbers you key in when we did that street, Twin Mountains drive alone. If we take on the burden to follow these leads that they've given us. It'll put us out of business. I know it will. If you hold me down, I will lose everything and I cannot afford it. I'm not in favor of doing that at all. If you build a good home and I've been out there recently looking at what's out there visiting with some neighbors and how they like the area, they like the view and there are some really nice views of of the lake now that the lake is up and it's it's a good area and the economy will come back. I believe in that Mr. Grower I really do. I want to be fair and equitable to you and still pay attention to the taxpayers dollar here and I don't want to create something for you that I know that is going to be burdensome and I know that will put you out of business. I'm looking at the rest of the council to come up with how many lots they feel since he inherited this. It's two developers old, so possibly only a third of the cost, or is that still too much or not enough? I'm looking at the rest of the council and asking for their opinions. You've already made a motion to accept it as presented. But I said, with the exception of the amount that is paid, I didn't agree with that. I'm looking for an amount to put in there with the rest of my motion, but I did not hear a second

[2:50:53] Did I hear a second to her motion? We did not get a second notes. I Simplified with your friend, and I know we've seen the economy go south and we're dealing with that in the city and It's a very serious issue. It's cost us. So I understand exactly where you're coming from. I sympathize with you I just want to make clear that I haven't presented anything as far as actual amounts or interest rates or actual payments, you know, I just gave suggestions because based on our last meeting, we, you know, sounded like it was open for negotiations and that we were gonna determine that today. I'd like to also point out that the assessment is required by statute to be on by the foot rule. So the footage on the road is what it's supposed to be assessed by unless you find that there's some sort of injustice that's served by doing that. So if we're going to reduce it from the 90-10, if you could explain pretty clearly what the, and let me see what the exact word is. The injustice to me is developers from the Dallas area, other ones who came in, and if you'll look back, I voted against this subdivision out there to begin with, but that's neither here nor there. To me, the injustice is the greed of the first developers, and then the second ones that came in, and then a local contractor, someone who lives here, His family lives here, comes in and tries to salvage and make a go of it. I don't believe he should be punished. To me, that's an injustice. I think that the city went in with the hopes at the very first one, oh, pie in the sky, and things look great. It cost a lot of money and takes a long time to develop any subdivision. And they weren't from here. They didn't have a vested interest, and they bailed. The next one wasn't from here, did have a vested interest in the bail. So I would like to see the city put the street in

[2:52:55] because of the safety hazards and issues and not penalize the current developer that's there. I'm just gonna make sure that we're clear. We're talking about 910s. In order for us to justify an amount below that, I wanna make sure that the law and what Ms. Farmer just mentioned a while ago, if that's justified in looking at it lower than that, very good. The thing about it is, too, just in this past six months, saddle club has been established for a good while. We had seven builders going in to try to get it started, and we've had several of them bail out. The land's been turned back over to the owner of that site. That's how struggling it is in that area alone, not just on my side of the street, but on their side of the street. had two developers, like she said, go down. I mean, I don't have a problem trying to help the city with the pace of it. I just have a problem with how much the bill is going to be. I mean, as a developer, as a builder, as a contractor, we study these numbers just as well as the city does. We don't understand why there's so much increase in cost on this. We seen where several items, line items from that 75,000 show to be a little bit overload. Where we're looking at the barricades, you know, over $8,000 or $8,000 in barricades. I I mean, that's an inexpensive way out there. We're looking at the water line. The water line doesn't have to be in technically right away until the engineer permits it in for the new subdivision. So if it's a street you need, what's the water line going to do for you? Nothing at this time.

[2:54:55] You're just trying to get a street put in for safety. along with a few other expenses that are in there. It's like I said, we researched the old numbers, we found that it was built for less than $50,000 in the high 30s, and here we are, we're up to 75,000 in less than a year and a half. And in a year and a half, like I said, we haven't sold there at me at homes. We're trying to hang on to everything. I don't know what else I can say. I don't have a problem coming to the table, but not for the nine tenths, when there's only 18 lots that could possibly be established. Right now, we're struggling with those 18, because we don't know that the permits ran out. We don't know what we're gonna do with that land. We have to struggle. I'm going to rescind my motion because it did, the mayor understood that I approved like it was, but I was in agreement with Russell but this was all to be negotiated and talked about at this meeting, but we had to do it in this manner to be legal. So I'm going to withdraw my motion, and possibly someone else on council has a better motion that as to how we can address this and get on down the road. So I have a question. We were talking last time about bidding out to a private sector to do this. Mr. Aguero was talking about how much he could do it for without the city, the increased cost. Can we bid that out? And I would propose the lowest bid. He put it in zero percent interest with a clause of promise to complete within five years and repayment assessed upon sale of each lot. Would that be? Well, basically, pro rating each lot to some degree. We don't have a plat right now to say. I mean, right now, there's only one lot. So, I mean, that would be one thing that we'd have to try figure out. I figure it's based upon that flat.

[2:56:59] I mean, it's just, it becomes difficult to keep record of all that, you know what I mean? Depending on, you know, if it would, you know, say they did plaid it to 18 lots, but then for some reason down the road, they re-plaid it again to 16 lots, you know what I mean? There's some, it's going to get kind of tricky and convoluted down the road, you know. as lots are sold. As lots are sold. Base the lot off of the current total square footage. Because he could go in there and sell four at the same size lot and one large one at the end. Those four same size lots is what are platted on the other sides around it would be based on one cost. and then that larger, I mean, I kind of have to defer to Teresa as far as the legalities of that. That's what that per foot rule is, is that the larger lots pay more, so the smaller lots would pay less on that. What is, would that be a possibility? I mean, I'm open to look at it, I'd have to see how it's structured. The thing about it is, they did this type of a structure when we first started on San We walked into something that had failed before, and we created streets there, and we paid the price on each lot to get it back in line with a negotiation. That's the kind of work we want. Something that's negotiable that's fair. I mean, something that's not gonna hinder the buyer from buying a house. We're already struggling to sell house today. We're not trying to raise our price cost. We don't want to raise it. The last thing we want to do is keep people coming out to the subdivision. And right now, this amount that's out there on top of whatever

[2:59:05] streets created, whatever lot is created, has to be very careful and keyed in correctly to balance the square foot price per house. because that area cannot stand to go up too much more before you start pushing people away to go somewhere else in the homes. The only other thing that I would say is this five-year program, I mean, I'm not saying that we're gonna get it done in five years, we don't know. Every time we look up, every three months, we're thinking, okay, is it coming? Is it coming? I mean, we're into December and we still don't feel, You know, elections are over. We still can't tell what we see. We still can't tell what January, February, actually what February and March brings to us. But we're trying to create and kick up the dirt to see if it'll come back, and it will, but we just don't know how fast it'll come back. And the bright side is that, you know, as far as the south side, that's as far as the development can go before they go into the water. In going west, before you get into the lake out there, So that makes me think that this pocket will develop. It will come back first before they start going west and to the north, in my opinion. I agree. I mean, it will come back in that area. I mean, I know a couple of other developers that has applied out there that list plus or minus 2, 300 homes in the future. And that's another expense that's coming. But like I said, I want to work a system out. I just want it to be fair. And I don't have a problem with the city going ahead and fixing this short little areas for safety reasons. And that's what I'd like to see done, is the city take care of it, but work out a reasonable amount to the developer that

[3:01:09] has been short, short stick. So, good. How do we have an estimate based on our computations? Do you have one based on some computation that you looked at that we can have a starting point? Do I? Yes. We do, but we're not sure how well that number will be today because this has been going on for a while. As any contractor will say, 30 days out, 45 days out, they're good with those numbers. We have one less, just a little over 50,000. Okay. It wouldn't be that expensive if we created. My name's Steve Baker. I'm the man who paid for all that. Terri did also have to quit now. Speaking to my phone, please. My name's Steve Baker. I'm not a real good public speaker. I would have been up here earlier. But I paid for Terri and Street in half of the Twin Mountain. And our cost in that was lumped. So it cut the price down. So I'm probably in the high 30s. I have since gotten some pretty close beds that are realistic, and they're going to run around 50 to 53,000. So it's 75. If we go a 9,10, 50, 55, that's a lot different. And that's a real important difference to us. It's probably going to be somewhere in the next three to five years before we get this thing finished out. I make practically, he builds the houses. build the roads. You know, as far as payback, if we could pay back, sometime when we sell the lots, that would really be helpful to us. So you're asking for 50? It's kind of the longest short of it, but around 50, 55,000 is a practical number on our end of it. I understand you have a lot more liability on your end, but you have things in this that, you know, barricades for $8,500, that's, you're talking, and this is a piece that's 35 feet wide and about 230 feet long, I think it is. It doesn't take

[3:03:09] a lot of barricades to barricade that during construction. So, you know, $8,500 is pretty steep. So there are a lot of numbers that we wouldn't necessarily reflect. So that kind of I thought I'd kind of back him up on that. Okay. So a lot of person who don't see what we can accomplish if we pave that thing and hit him $67,000 or $25,000 or $5,000 if we're going to put the man out of business because we're not going to get paid Well, he's probably tougher than that, but It's a definite concern and we know things have gone south. We know what the economy has done We know it's going to come back, but we don't know when I'd say let's just let this thing stay on hold for a while Until things begin to pick up again We begin to sell something and when the economy comes back then we can start talking about it I think $67,000 for that shorter road is totally unreasonable on your point and I will not vote for this But you know if they hit you with 25,000 I'd say put it on the note as you sell the lots then go ahead and pay it off But I think 67,000 is unreasonable amount of money Especially since things have taken the downfall The math for 75,357 divided by a 18 lot sector for that street. You bring out that lot at $4,186.50 per lot. At the $53,000 I took $53 for max. You bring it to $29,044. That's at $1,244. That's a $1,243 through $42 difference per lot. Added what would be to be bought. That's pretty And if you put it back, like we said earlier, and wait for Merrick to develop out, it'll be less of that. And the problem is, once again, we're at 125 foot average out there.

[3:05:10] You're going to increase that house, 126, 127, you know. And right now, I mean, we're fighting the size of lot that's there when we first developed area it was a good area developed and it still is but the problem with it is we built a lot it's not us the previous developer built a lot as a small size it's a technically I-102 well when you put a house on there 50 by 60 on there it eats it all up and we have customers complaining today there's no backyard that's why we've been struggling out there with we bought the problem as she said earlier we didn't we didn't if we would have seen the problem I probably wouldn't have bought the land and it'd still be sitting there but we took a chance because we thought we saw something that we could do in the beginning we did sell houses when there was no water in San Angelo when everybody was complaining that turn off the water everybody was starting to think hey I need a small lot so the first six to eight lots so fairly fast after that guess what the Lord's helped us it's been raining good and now people are wanting bigger yards and we're struggling to sell what we have I mean that's just a little piece of the pie that's hurting us but I mean the biggest part of it is on me just says what it wants to do and right now we have to follow it came up with a thousand dollars a lot or a little less than $1,000 making his total commitment $17,000 to get his portion done. No agreement. I mean, I'm fine with that. It's for a lot, but it also depends on how many lots of works into that. As we are right now, we're not under any kind of permit, but our permits have expired. But prior to that, we were permitted for 18 loss or the design was for 18. It's never going

[3:07:14] to get less we're already tight they're already tight lots so we'll probably if nothing else we'll get larger you know I mean if you want to do it by the square foot that would work too I mean if you do it if you say it's a thousand a lot we're figuring 18,000 payback you know if I do it in two lots you're gonna go way is short you're gonna be way short so 18 is probably a pretty good number if we were around 18,000 payback if you let us pay it back as the lot's sell I think we can handle something like that. And I think that is something that is reasonable, very reasonable for you. But because of past issues, you know, the city would have to. Bear the balance of the cost to get that brought up to some safety standards now. A current bid to finish out that sector and what would. If you did that because of course you're going to decrease your overall cost. You mean it was married? Sorry, yes, marriage done. Sorry, yes, marriage street. If a contractor went out there today and finished out both of those street, you can get a true cost. What square footers based on that, what it would be for a lot. I don't know. I don't know as far as that. Actually, what we've been selling a lot for right now around 24,000 is what the lot's sell for. Right. And obviously, most of that expense is in the road cost. Right. And that's expensive for a house that's 1,800 square foot home. That's a we're already right at the edge. So we can't go any farther or we're just it'll bury it. It just won't be feasible. In fact, I'm not sure we could even get it through interim. I'm not sure we can get the bank to go with it. As far as the prices, they won't go any higher. It's just where we are now. And on top of that sales are down, so we're not

[3:09:18] really anywhere at all right now. We can't we can't add more burden. You're not the only one in town in a situation. That's way out of the city. It's the economy. You're not the only one that's a problem. Which is probably the smart thing because otherwise it's easy to throw money around we everything's you know we're all doing great but we're not doing great right now so I'm really got to watch every daughter I just like to point under the statute there's a lot of flexibility for how you guys want to make the decision the first issue is the assessment amount what he can get a bid for we have to follow this purchasing guidelines our bids are going to be higher than that just because of the things we have to include we can vary the payment schedule he can pay on a a yearly basis. We can break it up into installments at whatever point in time. And you can also choose at what point he starts paying. So if it is at the time that the lot is sold, that's when the assessment begins. So you do have a lot of flexibility to cover the property owner and protect him today and still ensure that the city gets paid as these lots develop. So I don't want you to feel bound by a lump sum number. There's a lot of flexibility you have in the statute. It's like it's like I said I mean I let my emotions get involved but I care about them. We're builders and I love the speakers and it gives you a little bit of red face. Yeah but I care about this area and I want to finish it but I don't want to walk away from it. It means a lot to me. It's my first true to develop and I want to make it it's a beautiful area and the the wildlife that you have that it is out there and and I can understand the people wanting some yards because of the wildlife that they experience and I do spend a lot of time out in that area of I don't have a problem of making the total assessment of $17,000 with payment to begin with the first lot that is sold in order for city to proceed to get that small little section of the whole area completed for

[3:11:21] safety reasons but I'm just one member up here so we have to ask the rest of the council what their feeling is. I never had to stand on the courthouse steps and watch my watch everything I put be taken away from me and I don't want to put you through that and I think that's where we're going with this with this assessment. you're saying $17,000 total assessment to him make that in a motion and I'll put a second on it. That's my motion. Second. As long as it's not counter to ordinances on the book, I can support this. This ordinance allows us to be flexible and creative in how we get this money paid. just to make sure that we're clear you're saying $17,000 and then we need to talk and probably in the motion as well when that is assessed as well. And the first lot is so and that's exactly as Teresa had explained it to me that we needed to do this in order to be legal on it and I'd explained it to Mr. Grille that we would decide on the terms and the amount at this meeting. That's my motion that's my recommendation. And I don't think it's going to get any better than that either. To be clear, we'd pay our 17 with the first lot. So we can develop the problem. You can you can break that 17 down in payments to us. The portion of that 17 on the first lot, you pay so much to be clear that needs to be in the motion. So that's what I will make in my motion, the assessment to begin when the first lot is so proportionately in installments out there. I'll amend my second to reflect that. Then the one other thing that you have to address is the interest rate on the assessment. We can't exceed the 2.178 percent, which is our current interest right on our now going to be 2.178 percent either. Would you wish your mother a very Merry Christmas for me?

[3:13:25] Thank you. I just want to say I wish you the best. well I appreciate it like I said it's not just for me I mean I'm wishing all the other builders come back I know it's tough I mean we sit there as it is we compete against each other we don't talk to each other because we don't want each other know what our business is but we can hold on and for the record his mother was my next door neighbor for about 18 years so well I think we'll probably have the others in here but sir with similar problems because I've been speaking to others and you're not alone here. They're all suffering. It is. I mean, I don't wish any special circumstances the reason I would make an adjustment to this is special circumstances. And like I said, I mean, I wish the best for all the guys that's just been tough on all of us. I want to say thank you for listening to our points and help us out. I really appreciate this. I mean, it means a lot to all of us. Yeah, the motion you need. Let me state. Let me state the motion as I understand it and then you can correct me if I'm wrong. Motion is to approve the ordinance establishing the amount to be $17,000 payable proportionate to the time lots are sold with an interest rate of 2.178 percent. Yes in the interest rate the interest does not start until that one that first lot just like you would do it a drawdown at a bank that it would start with that amount only that is proportionate to the lot. Ryan could you repeat that rate again please. To approve the ordinance establishing the amount at 17,000 to be paid back proportionate to the lot sold at the time of lot being sold.

[3:15:26] Interest rate, right? Interest rate at 2.178 percent. Okay. I got the numbers mixed up when I heard them. I will amend my second to that. Do I have any council members who want to talk to this? Anybody else have feelings, Harry? one point so the citizens understand that we're making a section here and other developers builders that are come will come before us so we're setting a precedent today even though we need to do this in order to get this portion of this this street taking care of from a safety standpoint and we're all in an agreement that we're trying to help this small businessman survive we know that But there are other people in the community that have similar circumstances that will be back before this council with similar requests. And so I want this council and the citizens to understand that we are setting a precedent today. Bill? Okay. Well, let's see. What is exactly being built, the road and the water line underneath? Yeah. It's just the short, I mean, how many feet it is, yeah. in the water line underneath. Let's see. The water's stuck on the south side. There's already 32 feet of pavement, which is a single wing on back. Oh, talking to Mike. Right in front of you. Talking to Mike's phone. Oh, Mike's phone. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. They can't hear you. You say I'm loud enough. All right, what there is right now is the water's stuck out is on the south side of the road. There's 32 feet of existing pavement, and we're gonna add another, or there needs to be another 32 feet of pavement added that the city's gonna add. The water line roughs in under that entire thing, so that when we start developing Merrick Street, we tie on to that water line and keep on going. That's what the water line's about.

[3:17:27] How many homes right off hand are you aware of that's between the railroad track, which would be the dominion is about the last one on the north side of real estate. How many homes in that area out there at Lamar, what I call Lamar? Right now, I was doing an account. Technically, there's one report y'all showed 140 homes on the Baker's Ranch area, Southwell Codden, and so forth. In the Canadian area, you're probably pushing roughly about 40 homes. That's the old Canadian and the new Canadian, along with the Taren Street that has a couple homes on it. being a finger count, I was figuring about 250, 260 homes that people there that live there travel that area daily. Okay. Thank you. I'd be commenting on this item. Yes, sir. Aaron City Council, I appreciate what you're doing. I think it's the right thing. I I stood up before when it came and I was offended a little bit by the coldness of it. But I think this is great. this is fair, and this is economic gardening too, in my opinion. We talk so highly of it at the very first of this session, but this is the same thing. If other people are in hard spots, then they, you know, they need to be considered too, and I appreciate what you've done. Thank you. Well, Harry's right, there will be, there will be recourse on this. So. Okay. Okay. And where are we going to get the money? Complete this. I currently have the funds in the street capital account. And what would be cost to the taxpayers?

[3:19:29] We're estimating the $75,000 is what it will cost to the taxpayers. You know, it's not to say that we can't get a low bid in. in that will be lower than that but you know we have to be conservative in our estimates and be diligent with our taxpayer funds. This is under the okay the funding is available. Yes sir. Okay. I have further public comment on this for call for the vote. Motion has been read three times I'm not going to repeat all of those in favor please say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Aye. nay. Okay those four say aye. You got four eyes. Those nays say nay. Four three vote passes. Presentation number eight on water and wastewater fund performance following the first year of council adopted rate plan and consideration of the possibility of issuing rebates of water fees. Presentation by Bill Riley and Morgan Chegg Witten. Well mayor council thank you for letting me address you here this afternoon I believe. I'm going to be real quick and just going to give you an update on the performance of the water wastewater fund following the implementation of the five-year rate plans that you adopted about this time last year. And then Morgan will talk to you about the issue concerning issuing water rebates. Just as a quick reminder, after considerable public meetings and discussions over the course of last year, you adopted a five-year rate plan that went into effect January 1st, and just to kind of go back over to why we did that, as you recall, the utility was performing poorly and was in a financially poor condition, and there were four major issues that we needed to address with that rate plan, and the first was, of course, just what was called financial

[3:21:31] some sufficiency. We just have to meet the annual revenue requirement, the expenses most of which are fixed in place and so we have to be able to meet those needs. And then second was what is called financial sustainability. And that is to meet the financial targets that need to be set concerning the amount of the amount of money for O&M on hand at any one time which was determined to be 75 days. That's probably minimum for a utility of this size, but that is certainly a good number to shoot for, as far as being financially sustainable. And then also debt service coverage. So then the third thing was equally as important, and that's a future water supply. We had to look forward in how we were going to fund not only improvements that we needed to the wastewater facility, the water treatment plant, but also what are we going to do for water supply for the future and how are we going to fund that? And then, fortunately, of course, was the capital reinvestment. In other words, maintaining the infrastructure, rehabilitation of the infrastructure to deliver water and wastewater services. And we recently talked about how we were going to finance that to move forward with making improvements in that. So, just to get into it, looking at what our fund balance was in the water fund and at the end of last fiscal year in October 1st, we had a fund balance of $614,000. That was considerably less than what we need and that was virtually zero days on hand. And by the time the rate increase was implemented in January 1st, that fund balance had reduced from that drastically. We had total revenue this last year of 22 million, almost 22.5 million dollars, and we had expenses of 21.5, leaving a fund balance at the end of the year of 1.5 million dollars.

[3:23:31] So we saw, definitely saw some improvement in how we were performing, and we did see our fund balance begin to grow. Just to look at what the five-year plan was predicting and how we performed relative to that, we had anticipated that this year, at the end of this year, the fund balance would be around two million dollars. You can see we came in under that about a half a million dollars. That's probably and most most probably caused by the fact that we had a wet year. Water sales were down and so we didn't see the revenue that had been projected based on a normalized year. Just to kind of put this in perspective, when we do a rate study, when rate study is done since water usage is is highly affected by weather conditions. The first thing that they do is normalize the use, as best as can be done, is to look at what we think, and it's not an average, it's more of how what we think a normal use would be, and project that out over the five-year period. And so, unfortunately, this year, we were below our normal use, so we saw less revenue. But as we move out, it's important to look at your fund balance over that five-year period, because of the fact that you have some years that you have higher revenue, dry years, and then other years that you have lower revenue because of wet years. So you wanna project that over a five year period. So what we were anticipating was that the fund balance would increase each year with these numbers. Ultimately at about 5.5 million in 2018, but then because some projected capital expenditures are new water supply, we would see that drop back to about what it needed to be, just a little under that, at 5.5 million. The 5.5 million would give us roughly 75 days of operating capital on here. Just shows where we are after this year, at 18 days,

[3:25:33] was projected to be 24 days after this first year, and ultimately at the end of the five-year period that we would have roughly 75 days operating capital. So I think that while we came in under, I think that we could really establish that we are on track. The fund balance is growing as it probably should. Hopefully, I think if we see a more normalized use next year, that we would get back on track to what this five-year plan would be projected if we continued with that plan. Moving into the wastewater fund, It was obviously in a lot better financial condition than the water fund. We had a beginning fund balance of 3.4 million at the end of the year and 10.1. Ultimately we had an ending fund balance of a little bit under that of 3.3 million. Again, I think that while this is almost exactly on target, I think it's a little bit low because of the expenditures expense over revenues revenues because again of the wet conditions this year. However, we are above target still in our fund balance. But from a rate perspective, at $150,000 from what was projected, that's basically right on. I think that we're seeing that the wastewater fund is tracking like was anticipated, and hopefully it will continue to. And so we'll maintain that the fund balance that we need to have the financial targets met. see that we are considerably more than the 75 days in the our fund balance provides for us in the wastewater fund, but we're trying to maintain that as we have some significant capital expenditures that are anticipated in fiscal year 18, as we had talked about during the Great Plan. Morgan will talk about that. Good afternoon, Council. What's also before you today is the

[3:27:35] opportunity to issue water rebates as stated in the water rate ordinance. We are required to buy annually each April and November usually to bring to you the status of the water fund. So bill went over that briefly. And so we have taken action on this twice before in the past. I think the last time we took action was in 2007 when we took any excess fund balance and transferred it to the capital projects fund because then as we are now our infrastructure certainly was at a place where it needed the funding allocated. So the water fund balance, as Bill mentioned, is at $1.5 million. The goal would be to be at $2 million. So staff recommends no action related to issuing water rebates at this time. We do recommend staying the course and continuing to implement the rate plan as recommended to allocate to capital and maintenance as we are doing into this new budget year of 17 and we can of course reassess in April or sooner with the council's pleasure but we're already scheduled to be back with you in April to talk about the water rebate again. I have a few comments I can go first or someone ask him go first that make me any difference. I think one thing you fail to say Bill is that in January of 2017 water rates going to go up again. If my memory is correct, it's about three to four dollars a month. It is correct, Mayor. The five-year plan had an increase each year for five years. Looks to me like we're doing very well building our fund balance up. Waste water is above what we anticipated. It looked like our water funds are going up and I might also remind us that that $136 million project waste reclamation did not happen and that is exactly what this rate increase was built to include. We didn't include that. It's not taking place. It may be two or three years before it comes back. I think we're on a real, I think we're on a good road. I

[3:29:35] think we're building our days up. The only way I would go with not issuing a rebate is that we continue in 2017 at the same exact charges that we're charging now. I don't want to not give a rebate and then go up on our customers another $3 per month. We're hitting them just about as hard as they can be hit. And I appreciate your presentation, but you failed to mention that it's about to go up again next month. And I don't want it to go up again next month. Yes. I will make a few comments now that the mayor has spoken because he's triggered a couple items. First of all, in your projections bill, those radio increases are showing on those graphs. Are they not? That's correct. Okay, so we're below the 75-day threshold on the water, and if we don't take the increase, whatever that number is doing, $3 or $4, whatever it is, then we're not going to meet those projected thresholds in 2017. The other item I would remind the public of is even though we did not step off and do this wastewater reclamation those dollars are now being utilized in the support of the of the purchase of the Florida ranch and securing those water rights so I want to make sure that people understand that we're utilizing some of those dollars as leverage to borrow that money to do what we need to do and I agree but There's a lot of difference in $42 million and $136 million. And so I'm saying we need to adjust what we did last year in these water rates to reflect the reality of the cost and the amounts that we are spending. And I think we're already on a good path to get our 75 days back.

[3:31:36] It's growing. I don't see any reason for us to go up $3 or $4 a month, whatever we're scheduling to go up the first day of January of 2017, when we're already showing that in reality, we're on a good path. I will not support this. I think we need to. I think we need to make some adjustments to what we're charging our public. I don't necessarily disagree. I just think it's too early. I think we need to possibly wait and look at it in midstream 17. I think if we do it now, we can just be cutting our nose off by our face. But yet our public is going to be hit for additional charges starting next month. I mean, they're going to be hit already. So whether we give them any money back or not, their rates are going to go up the first of January. And that's what I'm saying. We're going up on our customers anyway. And we're not giving them anything back. And the reality of expenses has changed. If I might up point out a couple of things. One is, Mr. Thomas, you're absolutely right. there's a $40 million expenditure that we need to make sure that we can pay for it. The other thing is that that $136 million included some things that needed to be done, a rehabilitation of much needed rehabilitation of the wastewater treatment facility and the water treatment plant. Both of those were embedded in that $136 million just because we're not doing the water reclamation or the water reuse project doesn't mean those things don't need to be done. The other thing is you still need to find additional water supplies and you've got to be able to pay for that. So you're going to have to have the fund balance to be able to do that. Personally, I think you should at least go through this next year and see what get farther down the road to know where you're at and what your expenses are going to be. I think it would be a mistake not to implement the next rate increase. We've rebate in May also. It's twice a year, isn't it, Morgan? I believe it's the people actually realize that I believe in May.

[3:33:38] We discussed in April and November with the options to issue rebates in May or December or as soon thereafter as practical. In giving what you had said that it's too soon, Marty, would it be best to postpone a rebate now and look at it combined in April? That's what I find. Do we have to have a motion or if we don't do any actions in the state where it is? No, that can be by consensus. Sorry. By consensus is what she said. And I agree with Marty needing the time. And it won't be too late to look at it in April to give us a few more months if that's acceptable. I'd like to look at it again in mid-year, just to see where we are. I mean, if we're headed in the right direction, maybe there's some adjustments that we can make at that point in time. Since we've got to look at this twice a year anyway, maybe we take a look at it at that point and say, hey, we know that this is where we're going to be. You know, if the good Lord blesses us with another year in 17 like he did in 16, we're going to have the same issue that we had this year. No sales. We have a consensus to keep it like he is. Who with me? Are you shaking your head, yes, Bill or not? Well, I don't know, that's, because I'm not. I think they're all to be a rebate. I think it is time to rebate. We've charged them. The fund is working. We're seeing the reality of the, we're seeing the reality of that is growing. In fact, our wastewater is even above our projections. I think there needs to be a rebate. I think we owe it to our citizens. So I do not. But we're seeing a larger. Five, two or six, one. Let me start with Bill. Do you consent to rebate or no?

[3:35:38] Yeah, I'd like to see rebates or roads to price stay the same. Marty, you want to rebate or no? What do you say? He said yes, rebate. Is that what you said? Well, I said yes to the rebate and the price stay the same. May I add just one point of clarification. The right ordinance states that a review of the water operating fund is subject to rebate. The wastewater operating fund would be at the council's pleasure. This would be setting a new precedent. It's not our normal process and procedure. It's the water fund that's been outlined in the ordinance for this by annual review. It just so happened that it made sense to present both at the same time. So I'm going to move that we rebate the January bill on water and wastewater. One month. Second. I've got a second. The motion has been made that we rebate the January bill both water and wastewater. I've got a second. So now we can vote on it. Yes, Mary, you're talking about a multi-million dollar proposal right there. You just rebated the entire bill. We've never had that kind of that's fiscally I think it's time we give something back to our citizens. I think we're gonna I think we're on a good track Mary in the past when we've waited we have rebated a small portion of the bill not the entire bill I thought we had a basic bill and the basic bill, and then we got a water usage on top of that. I'm talking about the basic bill, which if my mind is about $20 a month for a low residential user and for a small meter residential user. And then fiscal responsibility and we started looking at having 75 days of operational expense and there as well, at this point we don't even have the 75 days for the water fund. And normally when we do take a look at that if we go above that amount the 75 days That's really when you should start looking at those rebates. We're not there yet. We do have a plan I do feel that we need to stay the course

[3:37:38] I know that the money is as far as a project in the future for the 136 million dollars It's part of the plan to secure that future wire to start making changes right now We're gonna deviate from that course and we have to change that plan. I think at this point We definitely want to make sure we stay the course as Mr. Riley mentioned a while ago and someone give me a figure to work with here something that is reasonable Michael give me a figure to work with that will give our protects our water payers some relief and something that is reasonable that will not hurt maybe I'm a overboard on this oh certainly we don't want to rebate an entire month's worth of activity give me give me a figure to work with. Mayor, the fund performed $500,000 worse than the plan. We're $500,000 short of what the plan hoped for. Is that right, Bill? Mayor, this is a time when the pressure is for upward pressure on the rates, not downward pressure on the rates. We're talking about citizens that are fighting the same exact battles that we are. It is time we start looking at the citizens that are paying for everything and giving them the benefit of the doubt because they are struggling in their households as well. If if we were not going up $3 a month or $4 a month in January I wouldn't be sad about this. But we're just about to go up on them again and this will add to the burden that they've already got. So it is you are in a difficult position on your when you sit in those big chairs it is difficult because you have to balance the citizen needs with your burden to operate a utility and provide reliable source of clean water and so it is a very difficult decision and one of the things we're struggling with now is catching up from having consistently low water rates and having a consistently relatively low maintenance and

[3:39:39] replacement burden that goes with operating a large utility. So let me Let me amend my back. Let me amend my motion. What are we going up in January, Bill? What is the amount of the increase? Yeah, another $3.84. What's $3.84 times 12? 45 to $46. Eight, 16, seven, four, eight, three, eight, 10, 16, $46.08. My motion is amended to say that we issue a rebate of $46.08 off of the January bill. Will you second that bill? Yes, second. I'm gonna take away that increase that we're charging our customers next year. So I will make the motion that we give a rebate of $46.08 on the January bill. You got a motion and a second? Yes. I have just a question and a statement is we have set up a five-year plan. a plan that all of our financial folks are based on, all of our predictions are based on, and we're saying, yes, and we're saying that we fell $500,000 short of that plan, and I've been watching the water sales. And farm a $1 short of our 75 day goal. Right, and Mr. Mayor, as much as I would love to give a rebate back, I just think it is too soon, and we're too new in our plan to do anything that we need to postpone doing anything and look at it seriously in the spring to see what our water sales give us some sort of

[3:41:42] track record as to whether those sales are going to be at the projections and go from there. I don't think we've got enough kind involved. No I just don't think there's been enough time in our entire five year plan and set up but if we start messing with it right now. Okay, I just want to say that even at the base, we have about $20 with 35,000 water customers. That's an impact of $700,000 to the fund. But it's an impact of $700,000 additional out of our consumers' pockets next year. And at the $46,000 or the $46 mark that you mentioned earlier, that's a $1.6 million impact to the fund. That's more fun balance than we have. Do you need a sneaker form? No, no, I'm just saying we are going to charge our citizens forty dot six dollars and eight cents more next year for their for their water. We're going to charge them that it's already in. So we've got plans to accept their forty six dollars and eight cents next year. But yet when I say let's give them back their forty six dollars and eight cents all of a sudden that figures the other way and it's it's a different figure. So I'm just saying you know if we're going to charge them then we're going to charge them. I'm saying let's rebate it. And I'm going to get voted down on this. I know that. Let's vote. Let's vote then. OK. What about all of a sudden my voice may have started talking. Your wife telling you to settle down. All in favor of making a rebate of four years. You do have a public comment. Oh, sorry. Jim didn't see you back as a I can't see you pass the television screen there. Come ahead. My name is Jim Turner still. And I think there's probably possibly a different approach that may make more sense to this instead of giving a rebate, why not just delayed the implementation of the increase?

[3:43:44] And that way you will see month by month whether or not the increase is necessary. And I can go with that. And then I'm just trying to keep things level. That's not on the agenda for today. that would be a modification of the ordinance. And we could definitely look at that in January if you want to bring it back at that point, but that's we can't do that today. And I don't have a problem with that. I think that is much better than going with the rebate today, because that gives you a much finer grain control to see how things are performing. Not a bad idea. We already know that we're underperforming. We're half a million dollars short of the plan. We're under performing. And this will show that. It already shows it. But you'll be able to take and control it better. You'll have numbers that be even back at up even better because I think that's a better option than going with a rebate because that's going to be a much bigger hole than what I'm talking about now, most likely. You're right, on that point. So I think that's probably the best compromise we could look at, come back in January and look at maybe delaying as appropriate because you'll also have some more information by then, the increase. Mr. Mayor, if I may, all of this was presented to our Water Advisory Board who gives us their expertise and recommendation to do what you're requesting, shouldn't it go back through them? I did fail to mention that we did take this to the luxury board and they did recommend to stay with the plan. With the business plan. Okay, I'm going to pull my motion and I'm going to ask you to bring this back in January's meeting that we

[3:45:44] reduce it by $3.85 per month and if it gets beat then then it's beat and you'll deal with it again in May but I want the citizens of this city to get some relief are they are fighting the same battles that we're fighting as a city with our two point million dollars less our two million one point eight million dollars less of revenue that we're dealing with our citizens are fighting the same thing so I'm gonna pull my motion and I'm gonna ask this be brought back in January for a vote on reducing the water rates by three dollars and eighty five cents per month Marilong with it will also bring the impact as far as on the plan you can bring all the impact, but I'm talking about the impact from the consumer to the water department, and you can bring the impact of the water department from the consumer. But I'm looking at it from the consumer view point, and I think that we're doing very well at the rate we've got now. I do not want to go up on them $3.85 a month. So if you will withdraw your second bill, I'll ask this to be brought back in January. I will draw on my second bill, but I'd like to comment that perhaps if the rate didn't go up, we can tell more water. We've got a point there as well. I'd like to bring this back in January and discuss it again. Let me make a comment. You make the water fund not meet. It's proposed balances by making a rebate and I think everybody deserves to have more money in their pocket. Don't get me wrong. That means that you've got another shortfall on your on on the amount of money that the city is operating on and where's that money going to come from? Talk about it, January, I'll pull my motion. He pulled a second, keep, keep on track, like it is, that we review it in April. And I second that said a motion because I was going to second the Harry Beaten. Okay.

[3:47:44] So what is your motion that we stay on track and that we review it in the April we're supposed to review or you second it okay we've got a motion on the floor we stay everything just like it is right now and give no rebates okay no rebates continue with the rates as they are with the three dollars and eighty five cent increase in January to be reviewed in April that is your motion and not like your second go ahead the public comment on that I call for the vote well that wasn't part of the well and I wanted to clarify because you had given direction to bring back an ordinance is this trumping this is trumping that I just want this will eliminate my direction so my directions will be no more super seated all in favor of Marty's motion say aye aye those opposed say nay nay put a 5-2 on it it's time to go to executive executive session on the revision of government code title 5 open government ethics subtitle a Open Government Chapter 551 Open Meetings. Subchapter D, exceptions required, but the meeting must be opened under the following sections A. Section 55107118 consult with Attorney with the Government of Body 60 Advices. If its attorney about pending or contemplated litigation regarding No. 1, 2013 Seal Coding Program Contract, No. 2, Temple to Constructions Incorporated, No. 3, L, Say Incorporated. Item B, Section 5510712 consult with Attorney with the Government of Body 60 Advices attorney. On the matter in which the duty to turn to the government of the body of the Texas Disciplinary Rules Special Conduct State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with his chapter regarding the West Texas Water Partnership. And item number C is section 551072, the liberation is about real property regarding number one, the forward ranch. Number two, like NASworthy Residential Lots. Number three, purchase properties for use by city departments. It is 1249, we need an hour and 10, about an hour, probably good, we will be back by dose of clap.

[3:49:46] Get this meeting started again. All the way up in the administrative issues, number eight, consider items discussed in exactly close session if needed. There is nothing that we discuss that we need to make any, take any action on, so that is there is nothing there. Item number B is consider approving the following board nominations. Fort Conch Hill Museum Board, Ish Kendar Tag Now, SMD5 to an unexpired term in the January 2019. I'd like a motion to approve. It's to approve. Marty and Lane, any comments from Council? Public comment? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Put a 7-0, Brian. Number C is announcement, consideration, a future agenda item. I'm struggling with you, Charlotte. I have none. Thank you. Thank you. Merry Christmas and everybody be safe. Lucy. Ghetto on that. Ghetto on that too. Marty. Ghetto. Bill. Ghetto. And Dhetto from the mayor as well. I will now accept second. I will now accept second. Third. All in favor say aye. 204 this meeting is history.

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