San Angelo City Council 7-21-15

[0:00:00] Good morning It is time to get this meeting call to order. It is 902 I will ask Mike Smith's house of faith to come forward please and start us off with the word of prayer Good morning, sir Let us seek counsel on the place that is best to seek it God we praise you this morning Jesus. We declare that you are king and and you are King alone Jesus you are mighty Lord, we thank you for the City of San Angelo, the County of Tom Green, and Lord, I thank you for the State of Texas. Lord, in these places, may we never forget you and may we never give you glory, God, where you are due glory. Lord, there are issues at hand, God, and there's things for which we can rejoice and so may we praise you, God, for the things that you have done. And Lord, when it comes to issues, may we look for you for discernment, God. Lord, may none of our own hearts or our own flesh get in the way in this place. God, for there are doors that you have opened. God, and there are doors that you have shut, and so may we quit banging and knocking on the doors that in which you have shut God. And may we listen. Open not only the ears, God, to our physical bodies, but open the ears to our hearts. May we posture ourselves and turn our focus and our gaze towards you, God, and may this not be the last time today in which we think about you, Jesus. But instead, in all matters, in all issues, may when our frustrations rise, God, and our stresses boil over or bubble up, God, or when we think that everything is going right, may we not forget you, Jesus. So for that, God, we give you praise, and we declare that you are higher than us, God.

[0:02:03] You are the rock that is higher than I. So may we stand firm, and you, God, not stand firm in our own knowledge, in our own accolades, God, or our own wisdom, but instead, may we realize that the God of universe has put us in this place to do what you have called us to do. So may we live up to the identity in which you have given us Jesus, and that is to be made in your image. So may we reflect your image, God, and may we show the city of St. Angelo and Tom Green County, both Jesus, that you are King, and that we will submit to you in all things. Lord, we praise you. Amen. Amen. Amen. Thank you. And since I have forgotten possibly someone else has put your cell phones on silent, Miss Ella Bella, Miss Isabella Frerich, would you please come to the front and her brother Ty Frerich. Isabella is seven years old and Ty is four. They are from Wall Elementary and they will be assisting this morning in our Pledge of Allegiance. Are y'all ready to go? Okay, let's face the flag here. And y'all will just get us started. Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Now, the Texas honor, the Texas flag, a pledge of allegiance to thee, Texas, once said, under God, one, indivisible. Thank you all so very much. Let's have a picture, here's a bell of time, let's have a picture. We'll rise here, please.

[0:04:26] It is now time for our public comment, and this is the time when we allow the citizens to come to the microphone and to approach the city about any issue that you may have, either pro or con. It is not necessary to sign in, it's just walk to the front. Let me read the legalities, and then we will open the floor for public comment. 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 the discussion of those items. At this time, if anyone wishes to approach the City Council with public comments, this is your time. Come to the front, state your name, you've got five minutes. Good morning, sir. Good morning. My name is Ramito Hernandez. I'm a retiree here in San Angelo. I've lived here all my life. I think San Angelo is a beautiful place to live. I'm so proud of the parks, the recreation city council. It's great. It's a, I challenge anyone to find a better place to live. I'm here to talk about animal control in the city. I walk and ride bicycles for exercise. And during these times, I often encounter loose or stray dogs. Now, I know there are ordinances that state how you can keep animals in the city, especially dogs. I find that some citizens are neglectful by allowing their pets to wander freely. Now, these small dogs, just a nuisance or a minor distraction,

[0:06:30] but sometimes I run into larger dogs that are aggressive and pose a serious health risk to bicyclists or pedestrians. I know that these people, sometimes they leave the gate open, they'll leave the door open, the animal wanders out, and dogs do what they do. There's no stopping that. But there are people who willingly do this, and it causes a problem. We do have a very good animal shelter here. They do a fantastic job, I think. But I was not aware that they have a shortage of animal control officers. The last time I called, they still had only one. I find that unacceptable for a city of this size. If somehow, some way, someone can address that and maybe expediate the hiring of more animal control officers so that they can do their job better, I don't have much else to say. I think that San Angelo is a beautiful city. Maybe this is not a real problem. I consider it a challenge, and I leave it in your hands. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, sir. Bob Solis, did you hear all of that, sir? Okay, well, we can't discuss it now. We have four positions. We have two people that are active duty now, if you would. We had two that are in one in training and we're hiring the fourth one, so we're trying to get stuffed up. Thank you, sir.

[0:08:30] That's the main man right there, so that's the guy that needed to hear what you had to say. You did well. All right. Thank you very much. Other public comment? Good morning, sir. Good morning. I appreciate you guys allowing me to make some comments this morning. My name is John Sage and I've been a homeowner in San Angelo for many years and I'm now retired. And as such, I've paid many water bills over the years with very little tardiness and I try to practice as much water conservation as anybody would in these dry times. Last month, the Water Utilities Office added a pretty high penalty of $25 to a late penalty for a late payment to an otherwise normal bill. And I'll be the first to concede that if I had a serious history of being late, I would understand, you know, the charge for such a penalty. However, when you do the math, one finds that the penalty on the basic water bill charged amounts to roughly a 50% annual percentage rate charge. And I think this is entirely out of line with this being a reasonable charge. Now even though I'm retired, I can pay it. And that's not the point in writing and being here this morning. There are many folks in our city who struggle each and every month just to put food on the table for their families. A charge of $25 for a late water bill payment is a significant hit to their budgets, and I believe this policy has to be reviewed and revised to a more reasonable levy on a resident of San Angelo. I hope you agree with me and can implement a more fair, late penalty policy. Thank you all for allowing me to speak this morning. Thank you Mr. Sage. Just as a matter of record, I asked last meeting that this be put on the agenda today for discussion and it is not there, boss. We're not ready yet, we're doing a study on that. We don't have a schedule at the next city council agenda, but Mr. Riley is working on it right now. We will get this on the agenda for discussion and maybe some correction.

[0:10:30] And I really hope that it's on next meeting as it was supposed to have been on this meeting. Anyone else, any more public comment? Got off easy today, didn't we? Mayor, before we start, I do want to introduce our new city attorney. Teresa James comes to us from Abilene. We're very blessed to have her. She's very knowledgeable. She's been on the job now for a week and a couple of days. And I tell you what, she has taken on all kinds of issues. I was going up and down introducing her to all the directors. And as we're going, she was telling, I'm working on that one item for you. So she's already hit the ground running and we're very pleased to have her with us. All problems are already solved. They're done, man. Very good. Good problems. Welcome aboard, man. We're glad to have you. Thank you. Anything else from the public? All right, we will now go through the council for any announcements, or if there is anything on the consent agenda that you wish to pull to the regular agenda, this is the opportunity. Ms. Grindstaff, we'll start with you, ma'am. I don't have anything to pull from the agenda, mayor, but I would like to say I think like a lot of others on the council we're all receiving a lot of calls about the new trash service and I have been texting Robert Searles day and night and even after midnight and they have been very willing to help and so I would just say that if there's any citizens that haven't found what they need from city staff which Anthony Wilson and Shane Kelton have also been very helpful if there's anything you need and you can't get city staff Robert is certainly well willing to speak to you directly but we all know there's a little pain and change and in San Angelo there seems to be a great deal of pain and change but we will work through it and hopefully be better on the other side when we get there whenever we get there Shane. I think yesterday our starting date went pretty well didn't it Robert from what I've heard I've heard

[0:12:32] we had a good day yesterday I've heard a few complaints but all in all it's been very positive, so it'll work. We just have to give it time. Ms. Lucy, do you have anything, ma'am? Well, I just have to say that, thank the Lord, the mowing has been done on the lake. Thanks. That was getting out of hand, wasn't it? It's terrible. Ms. Farmer? I especially want to thank Shane Kelton and his crew for pitching in and working evenings and weekends to try to catch up with the mowing around town. They're hitting some hot spots, folks, and we're getting to them as fast as we can. I do want to make an announcement. I attended the Port to Plains Board meeting in Lamar, Colorado last week, and a very long board meeting, lots of subjects, and I will be meeting with the Costa DC Development Board tomorrow to bring them up to date. But I want to announce that the annual meeting, of course, is in Williston, North Dakota in October this year. However, St. Angelo won the annual meeting for 2016, the first week in October next year, and I conveyed that information to the city manager immediately to get it to the mayor, and for us to get started in planning to host a great organization. The corridor, I had the opportunity, I drove this trip and I drove the corridor to see what those ports plane dollars are. People are out there working to get the dollars to make our highways and rails safer, and we need to work on Oklahoma. I guarantee you, driving through there, need to work on that portion of the corridor, but that is something that we can really be proud of. I also brought back to the mayor, and I'll let him expand on that, a feasibility study that's coming up, and I'm going to pass that when it gets to the mayor. But the other thing here locally, I want to thank Carl White. Last council meeting, And I asked for numerous things. And one of them was an update on the half cent sales tax. I wanted to know every project that was out there, what was allocated, not allocated,

[0:14:33] and the status of that project. And I'm sure city council members got it. And their Friday packet, Carl provided a spreadsheet that brings us right up to July 15 on those dollars. And I'm very impressed. Carl, you must work at least a minimum of 80 hours a week, if not 100, to do and get done what you get done. And I want to thank you for that. And Mr. Mayor, the other item I would like to pull on the agenda, consent agenda for G for discussion. And that's all I have. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Ms. Silas. Mr. Mayor, I do have a couple of things. I know that I have brought up the concern from the neighborhood around Bird Street on the Wilson Tire little yard they have out there and that continues and hopefully we'll get rid even more tires and I'm glad Bob Salas is here. So that's the problem there with mosquitoes and I know mosquitoes are problem all over town but when you have an area that's where you have a pile of tires like that it's it's even it gets even more congested with mosquitoes. The other area that was brought up to my attention this past Saturday was again the Wilson tire store there on South Chadburn and Avenue K there was a business owner across the street they told me please look into having some remedy there because the same thing is happening there with those tires. So I wanted to add those two locations and put it on the radar screen. I was brought up, informed on some information on the downtown area, the traffic and the lack of lighting and the people just driving like crazy going through there. And I'm afraid that it is an accident waiting to happen and somebody's going to get hit and run over all over again so I hope we can look into that area all of the downtown especially you know Friday night Saturday nights when all the activities going on and all those there places are open for business if you know what I mean so anyway just wanted to at least throw the plant to see that

[0:16:34] that's happening that's a big problem we need to look into it thank you miss myself Mr. Flinging I don't need to pull anything off the agenda but I would would like to actually I'd like to thank Carl also for the update on the projects that he sent to us this last Friday but on there I'd noticed that one of the projects is mine is the lake boat ramp and I noticed the date had been changed from 2016 to 2017 and I would like an update to the public because there's a lot of people that have been contacting me on this and are very upset that it this is taking so long so if we can get that put on the agenda for the next meeting please. I don't think we can discuss it at all. And as far as this ports the plains and letter that Charlotte was talking about, we have been working on the feasibility study of maybe extending I interstate 27 from love up down through the ports plain corridor, which would be through Big Spring, San Angelo Sonora, and then to Dale Rio, where we could tie into interstate 20 at Big Spring, tie into interstate 20 at Sonora. We dealt with this probably what 20 25 years ago, and it never, it never got very far. So, I-27 now runs from Lubbock to Amarelette, turned around and he runs back from Amarella back to Lubbock. And we would like to extend this on down through the Portsmouth Plains corridor. I've got some letters that Portsmouth Plains has asked that I send out to different people here in San Angelo and I'll drew Darby's on board with this and I will get those letters out of Mignana, the different people. I'll ask you to sign it and let's get these things sent back in to see if we could get a feasibility study from Text Dot and see if we can get something going it may not happen in our lifetime but it won't happen at all if we don't get started so that's kind of the update on porch planes. That's my other tomorrow. Yes ma'am. Do we have something on the agenda that trash? I thought we did. For trash? I don't think so. Okay. We got Robert here we need it. Alright we do have one item that would be 4G that Charlotte has pulled

[0:18:39] off the consent to the regular agenda, but I do have items 4A through 4H with the exception of G and I will entertain a motion to approve. I will move to approve everything on the consent agenda item minus the one that was pulled. I'm not going to ask you to say that again. Do I have any comment on it from Council before we move forward? Do I have public comment on the consent agenda before the voters take. Then I will call for the motion all in favor of approving consent agenda items 4a through 4h with the exception of 4g please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Put a 7-0 on that one Brian. Number g is consider approving an increase to rfb w-o-1-1-4 trench repair to CM construction San Angela, Texas, by 25% of the original bid amount of $1,365,135 to $1,706,414. Mr. Riley, explanation, please. Sure. Well, the reason I pulled this when I first read it didn't set well with me that a bid already is coming back in for an increase of 25%, which is nearly $400,000 on this. And I was curious as to when these bids were, and I visited with Mr. Riley about it, and 16 months ago, and that made me curious as to what the other bids, the competing bids were, and now we're going up 25% on this, and Mr. Riley explained it to me, but I think I would like for it to be explained to the public as to what this increases for and how it came about. Absolutely. This is our trench repair contract that we use for trench repair after we have water leaks are dig up sewer main in the street so that they come in and put things back to the proper standards. We also use them for fire hydrant replacement. We use them for main extensions and they've been involved in the installation of the new

[0:20:43] automated meters and so back when this contract went into place we were very understaffed and so we used them quite a bit more than we normally would have. But the way this is done is we initially established the estimated quantities for each one of these things that we're going to use them for and they give us a bid on that. But it's just estimated since it's kind of a work order driven process depending on what the needs are, the number of main breaks and those kind of things. Since we had to use them more extensively in the beginning of this year than we anticipated, running out of money in this contract and so we need to increase that so that we can finish out the contract which ends October 31st. So my initial thought was that here before you know a 16-month-old contract you know would they have gotten a bid if they had been this $400,000 higher and you explained to me that at the time would you please explain the difference in that? Yes ma'am the contract is based or the pricing is based on the quantities or based on each one of the issues that we want trench repair, the type of trench repair, the fire hydrant maintenance and those kind of things. And based on the quantities that we provide, the initial bid, they were low bid on the actual individual unit pricing. And so they were low, they would still be low. And since we're increasing the quantities, it's not changing the bid. That's what I wanted to explain. We, the city, are increasing the quantity of work and that would have increased the bid with whomever got the contract at least this much more and I just wanted the explanation of that. Move to approve is presented. Second. Motion to approve and the second. Do I have further council discussion on this and you may not need the extra money if we don't have the extra work. Is it budget? But we're going to have it.

[0:22:44] Budget. Did amount. It is budget bill. It is. Thank you. Do I have public comment on this item? All in favor of accepting this as presented, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Let's move on to the regular agenda. We will start out with an update from the West Texas Weather Modification Association. This was requested by Ms. Farmer and the presentation by meteorologist Jonathan Jennings. Bill, would you like to introduce him, please, sir? Yes, sir, thank you. As you know, the city has a representative on the board of the West Texas Weather Modification Association. So we stay in close contact with Mr. Jennings and his group. I can tell you that during the winter and spring, Mr. Jennings took credit for all of the rain. But I also wanted to tell you, he is also a member of a very important member of the Water Advisory Board. And we certainly appreciate his service on there. So, Ms. Farmer asked for an update. So, he wanted, he does not miss an opportunity to talk about what they're doing. It's some pretty exciting stuff. And so, with that, Mr. Jennings. Welcome, Sarah. Thank you, Bill. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you for having me. And thank you for your service to the city of St. Angelo. I'm gonna give you an update on the rain enhancement activities across the WT-WMA target area. Again, I'm the meteorologist with the program. based out of Mathis Field just down the road from here. A quick background, you can see our target area on the picture up there. The city of St. Angelo, there are the only ones that pay in as a city. The other programs are developed from the single county water districts from Crockett County up to Stirling County and areas in between. The city's assessment pays for areas west of 277. The rest of Tom Green County does not participate in

[0:24:45] the program and the other picture up there you can see one of our aircraft in action that's one of our pyrotechnic flares a hygroscopic flare you see the smoke trail that gets pulled up into the cloud via the inflow of the thunderstorm and that's where the magic happens we start introducing the favorable nuclei into the portion of the cloud. And what we're trying to do is create heavier rain drops or ice crystals in the cloud that allow them to fall more efficiently. So in 2004, it wasn't the best year, weather-wise, for rainfall. We had 16.71 inches of precipitation. That's about four and a quarter below our average. 46% of this rain fell during the Memorial Day weekend. And we were somewhat busy during that time. However, we can't operate during flood warnings or tornado warnings, and we have plenty of both within our target area on those days. The cloud resources overall were pretty limited. Everything we were dealing with were pretty small, or again, we had those flood warnings during the Memorial Day weekend event. Despite that, our operational days were normal. We had 40 operational days across the target area. We seeded a total of 111 clouds within our target area. 58 of those were small, 20 large, 33 type B. Those are clouds that are seeded before they enter our target area. They developed outside, so they're a little older. We're not able to do as much with those. The analysis, we have a Texas Tech University Professor doing analysis for us, Dr. Archimedes Ruiz Columbi. And he's been doing this since 2001 for us. He found a total acre feet increase across our entire target area of 1.089 million acre feet. That's quite a bit of water. This is a 2.02-inch increase across the entire target area, or a 15% increase in precipitation. And this is during our seeding season, which typically begins in early March and ends in late October. The 11-year average, we were looking at about 1.275 million acre feet or two and a quarter

[0:26:47] inches of rainfall, or a 16.2% increase. And the reason we were a little below our average is we just didn't have the resources. And this has been a problem since 2011. drought hit. We haven't had many really good years, but that's changing this year. So how did Tom Green County do this last year? Of the 40 days we were out seating, 19 of those occurred somewhere within Tom Green County. On those 19 days, Mathis Field recorded 4.24 inches of rainfall. But of course, Tom Green County is much larger. Carl's bad, knicker barker, water valley. Those are some of the areas that we often hit. And those are in watersheds of OC Fisher and Twin Buttes, so very favorable area. The seasonal rainfall for Tom Green County was 15.46, that's your March through October. So we saw an increase of precipitation by 2.65 inches within the county. So we're doing better within the county than we are throughout the entire area. The 11 year averages you can see there, 17.23 seasonally with 2.85 increase rainfall. And those are the totals on the right from 2004 to 2014. And then the average is on the bottom. I should have added the years there. So you can see that we've had pretty good success throughout our tenure doing weather modifications since 2004, averaging about 2.85 inches across the county of Taung Green. 2015 year to date, it's been very busy. We've had one of our busiest springs ever for weather modification. So far, Mathis Field, year to date, 18.96 inches. We're getting pretty close to average already. We're 7.61 above normal. We've had 24 operational days. None of those occurred here in Tom Green County. And those days produce 2.34 inches of rainfall at Mathis Field. And the map on there is your percent of normal rainfall. anything that is green is 125 to 150% of normal and the blues are 150 upwards of

[0:28:50] 300% of normal so we're doing very well so far this year despite that our lakes still need help. So a quick case study bringing up the lakes we had a really good event in 2013 on October 18th where see the storm in Sterling County was heavily seeded, moved over the North Contra River watershed. Next day we have 4,000 acre feet of water in OC Fisher. Well this July 7th we had a similar event where Carlsbad received about 1.03 inches and the Mesonet Station northwest of town saw 1.72 inches. This system held strong, it stayed steady and it lasted very long and we seeded this storm for three hours. This storm allowed for both the North Contra and Middle Contra to run pretty strong for a few days which resulted some increases across the OC Fisher and Twin Buttes Reservoirs. We saw an increase in OC Fisher by about 754 acre feet, Twin Buttes about 2400 acre feet. So we saw a combined increase of storage from 3,200 acre feet. I'm not saying whether or not I did all of this, but we certainly had an impact on the duration of the storm. Additionally, we've had a benefit cost analysis done by Dr. Jason Johnson from Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. And He took all of the data that Wethermott gave him. He assumed a one-inch increase in a timely manner, so he's looking at, okay, we only produced one-inch of rainfall through March, March to October. What are the benefits? So, he concluded benefits from rain enhancement could be anywhere from increased ag production to decreased surface and groundwater consumption. And then, of course, increased reservoir, lake and river levels, replenishment of aquifers, among other things. However, not all of these benefits are so cut and dry. So he wanted to look at the ones that he was able to figure out how much benefit we were receiving, because not all of these are easy to quantify. So we looked at first the impact of rainfall

[0:30:51] to dry land crop revenues. So what does one additional inch between March and October do? And he did this for the entire TWMA, the West Texas Weather Mod Association is part of a larger association where we cover 20% of the state of Texas. So 31 counties were studied, and these are the results for just the WTWA area for increased dry land crop revenue. And you can see Tom Green County sitting second behind Glasscock County for the amount of additional revenue from dry land crop acreage. And I have a little star there next to Tom Green County because of course we're only covering about 45%. So this number was adjusted for the amount of coverage that we have. The other area we looked at is additional rainfall to irrigate a crop acre. So how much irrigation are we saving? Again, Tom Green County is leading the way there with $122,000 of benefit per year. And then moving on, the impacts of additional rainfall to grazing land revenues. Tom Green County sitting in the back there at only $65,000 a year, but when you figure that the assessment Tom Green County or the City of St. Angelo puts in is only $40,000, you're already getting your money back right there. So the total benefits, and this is the direct economic impact Tom Green County per year seeing about $1.5 million in return for the $40,000 that is put in the assessment. Overall the WTWA seeing over $6 million a year, we run on a budget of $359,000. However, we're not only seeing these benefits here just in the local level, but the economists that did this study used the impact analysis for planning multiplier to try to figure out exactly how much were impacting state of Texas. And these numbers were almost doubled area wide. You can see that the amount of benefits we're seeing in Tom Bering County is up to 3.2 million

[0:32:52] state wide. So what we're doing here is having to impact across the entire state of Texas. Using the amount of money that we have for the budget and the amount of impact we're seeing for every dollar that is being put into the WTWA target area, we're seeing a return of $16 directly or a statewide impact of $34. So we're doing pretty good. We hope to be a little more efficient because compared to the other programs, we're not doing quite as well with the benefit cost ratio. However, we do have a hill suppression permit, which allows us to seed severe, warm thunderstorms, and that allows us to try to suppress the hill. The other programs don't have that, so we're much more aggressive program than the South Texas program, which is based out of Pleasanton and the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District up in White Deer. So, the 31 counties that were analyzing the study, the top three were Tom Green, Glasscock, and Carson, as far as dry land crop revenues concern. When you're looking at irrigation, Carson, U of Audi, and Tom Green County, and then for a grazing land revenue, Crockett County was in there from the WTWA. But overall, Tom Green, Glasscock, and Carson counties were the top three as far as benefits are concerned from weather modification. What is not included? Dr. Green and I did a research study. He's with the Southwest Research Institute, we found that we're increasing the aquifer by 100, the Edwards Trinity aquifer, which is just west of St. Angelo. We're increasing the recharge by 100,000 acre feet a year in that aquifer. It's hard to put a dollar amount on that. We haven't been able to look at Enhanced Spring or Riverflow, which can lead to better wildlife management. These are ideas that are, that should definitely be studied. We're trying to figure out how to study these with a very limited budget, but also limited resources. So

[0:34:54] we're still trying to figure out ways to do that and try to find someone that might be able to help us do that. So that's all I have right now. I want to open up for questions. Your time is appreciated. I hope I covered much of what you were expecting. Thank you very much. You have a question. Mr. Jennings, thank you very much for serving on our water board. I definitely appreciate your time that you spend in your expertise that you bring to that board. I have no questions about the work that you're doing. I only want to bring it forth to the citizens report that even though we've had some rains the council has not forgot that water is first and foremost and the work continues to go on and it's very nice we inform the public so I appreciate your presentation very much so thank you. Thank you. Further questions? I have just a quick when I I did understand at the beginning of your presentation we talked about you had lack of resources what did you mean by lack of resources clouds we we can't make that you created the clouds no we can't I wish we could what we're trying to do is take what mother nature gives us and squeeze the sponge so to speak so squeeze it over Ivy we're trying yeah that's Oh, I have these out of our area. We don't have much control over our RV right now. Squeeze at east to Slim Angela. How do I get rid of this high that's over us? How do you get patients? You can't do it. There's not much we can do with the synoptic scale or large scale weather pattern. We can only influence micro scale weather, which is where we're at right now with small clouds, larger thunderstorm systems we can work on, but these high pressure systems, just patients. You work better with Lowe's. Yes. Yes, certainly. All right. I have a question for Ms. Benel. For the questions down here, down here? Yes, ma'am. I would like to ask Ms. Benel of this $40,000 that we pay you per year.

[0:36:55] Where do we charge this money out to what category in our, where does it come from? We don't have Ms. Benel anymore. I am not sure. Well, OK. The former Ms. Benel, I don't know what her married name is, the congratulations to her. Carrigan. Carrigan. Here, here. C-A-R-R-I-G-A-N. Well, once she's coming up, I did have the opportunity to ride in one of the planes when y'all were doing that way back about in 92 or so, and it was really neat. We've had a lot of upgrades in technology, so please come back. You guys open the door and just never do that. Good morning, Council. Tina Carriger for the record. We pay that amount out of professional services from the Water Operating Fund. The Water Operating Fund? Yes, ma'am. This qualifier, just a question, to you, does it take qualified for water development out of our AdSense sales tax money? We'd have to look at that, if you would. I would like to look at that to see if there's some very definite language in the ballot, so we would want to definitely make sure that that would be an option. Just that was my. But we'll take a look at it, though. Thank you. Any further questions? Public comment on this item. We thank you very much sir. Very good presentation. Keep working. All right number B is status update and direction from Council for rainwater harvesting. This was requested by Rodney Fleming presentation but Russell Pail. Your own sir. Thank you Mayor and Council, give me just one second, I'll find my presentation.

[0:39:01] Thank you again. Yes, I'm here today to give an update and some to get some direction today on our water harvesting curb cut ordinance that Mr. Fleming asked for. Basically, today I'm gonna be going over the current status of where we're at with that. Some positives and negatives of curb cutting my recommendations and then finally I'd like to get direction from the rest of you. So far we have completed or at least in the engineering department we have completed some revisions to the to the ordinance and the design manual basically what we found is that there was a lot of duplicated information in the ordinance and in the design manual and just doing some general housekeeping on that, keeping design standards within the design manual and keeping ordnance material within the ordnance. We've added some design standards to the design manual for curb cutting and a draft form. We've added the size and number of allowed openings per lot. example that we're looking for or that we're looking at is an 18-inch wide curb cut one on each or one per residential lot standard residential lot any residential lots on a corner we would look at entertaining too and then placement of those curb cuts within that lot you know we're want to keep them approximately 20 feet from any street intersections and five feet from any the adjacent properties, adjacent utility easements, or utility of pertinuses. And the main reason for that five-foot offset is to minimize flooding around any street signs or fire hydrants, utility poles, things of that nature,

[0:41:02] so that we're not affecting the structural integrity of those pertinuses. And then two, we don't want any, or what we stipulated in the design manual is not to have any underground piping or storage within the public right of way. The main reason for that is should we need to come in there to repair any water mains or sewer mains that we're not interfering with any private storage facility. And then finally, within that design manual, we've defined some permitting requirements. mainly being that the engineering department would need to review each and every one of these on an individual basis. Some positives of curb cutting reduce water bills for irrigation and some potential for reduced water demand on our current supply. You know I haven't done any actual studies on you know how you know the public interest on this but you know it could have some minimal effects on our, you know, from irrigation, mostly, negatives of curb cutting. Some of the negatives that I've found are poor water quality. The water quality coming off of the street, you're going to typically have a lot of oils, chemicals, and potential heavy metals within that water, and then if we turn around and use that to irrigate, you know, not only landscape, but say someone had a garden in their backyard and then ingesting that that could be a potential problem, you know, another instance is odors generated from this water. It is a poor quality, you know, if we have a bunch of standing water, you know, it could potentially generate some odors, mosquito habitat, it's very maintenance

[0:43:04] intensive, you know, we need to keep them clean, getting the gravel and whatnot from our leaves and grass clippings out of them so that they will function as they are designed. Potential flooding issues, liability issues that we may have, someone, you know, constructed one of these and then it flooded onto an adjacent property owner who could be looking at some potential liabilities from that aspect. And finally they are, you know, it's not cheap to install one of these. Russell, can I ask you a question, please? Yes, ma'am. before there was some confusion at least in the people that I spoke to about this, when we talk about a curb cut, is that simply a cut in the curb and then some sort of, I mean is it a ponding thing, like a detention or are you talking about like a cistern under the ground that then is attached to an irrigation system? Correct. We're looking at a multitude of things and what I had brought to council back in, I think It was May where some preliminary designs of what we were looking at with this were a simple curb cut within the curb and then having a channel that went to either a pond, a bio-retention basin is what we're calling in in our design manual or some type of inlet to channel it to that inlet and then it being either stored underground on that property or from that point being pumped up to an above ground storage facility or something of that nature. You know, we would mostly be from the engineering standpoint be looking at the different grades. You know, did I answer your question? Yes. So, mechanically speaking, if there is some sort of inlet and there's no piping within the public right of way, which I agree with, how do you stop water when there's too much water to what can be captured and held on a property in your

[0:45:08] bio retention basin or the other facility as well. What stops that if there is an overflow? Okay so basically you know what we would need to be looking at from an engineering standpoint is the grades involved. You would want the back of your bio retention basin or your inlet to the back portion of it from the back of curb to the back of the retention basin to be higher than the back of curb. So just from simplicity, just so that the water would flow back out. Is that clear as mud? No, I got it. All right. All right. My recommendations are to bring back changes to the existing ordinance and design manual for council action to clean up our existing ordinance and design manuals, recommend searching some other methods for harvesting rainwater for residential use, for example some roof collection systems, gravity systems that don't require flooding or pumping to collect rainwater, tarps to hang off of a fence or a roof, altering a driveway to collect rainwater, all of these methods have a much cleaner form of water to harvest. And finally, curb cutting. I think we should look at that more for a commercial application and not necessarily a residential application. And then finally, just requesting some action on adding curb cuts to existing ordinance and drainage design manual. Questions? First of all, I'd like to thank Russell for doing more work in the last 30 or 45 days than was done in the previous two two and a half years. I appreciate that you took this very serious and as we all

[0:47:09] know this does need to be taken serious any any way we can save water and figure out how we can help stretch out our water in the future I think will be good for the citizens. I like this to move forward but there was a couple things I talked to to another to an engineer that wasn't a city engineer sure it would like to talk with you guys about a couple of design things you sent me a a couple of design schematics on some thoughts and I'd like to get you guys with them also with the public and try to come together on what would be best on how to do this and how we could possibly make it words as smooth as possible. I do realize this is something that's going to be an expensive thing and there won't be very many citizens doing this but if even a handful of citizens do this, it's not going to, if we do it correctly, like you were saying, it shouldn't affect anybody and it should actually help overall. So if they're willing to spend the money, I would like for them to spend the money and do that. Okay. I'd be happy to meet with anyone. Okay. So I don't want to, I'm not asking for any action to be taken today. I would like for that meeting to take place before and just make sure that we are on the same page with the engineers because there's a lot of this that are involved. Liz, you just brought up some stuff that a lot of people, even council people on this board, may not understand how these things are drawn up and it's a pretty complicated type system. Sure, and two, the reason I didn't bring those drawings to council today is I wanted to get a little more direction before we move forward with those and needed to make any necessary adjustments. I would like to ask for the direct, I would like to move forward on the direction, not to change the ordinance, but I would like to move forward on the direction on working this out. Is that what you're asking for? Mostly asking for it to go ahead and change the ordinance at the very minimum, to change it to remove the redundancies

[0:49:10] and not necessarily include the curb cut ordinance. I'd like to go, I still need to get with legal to get all of the wording just so as far as what needs to be worded in the ordinance, but yes, I'd at least like to go ahead and move forward with that, and then maybe at a later date, and you know, we had in the past was a development task force, you know, getting more involvement from multiple folks, you know, citizens, developers, engineers, you know, I'd like to move, I'm right with you there, I'd like to get more input from the community on how we should see that. Yeah, and I'm all for that, and I like that you put other systems up there besides just curb cuts because we do need to be thinking out of, we need to think outside of the box and I brought this up last time, let's not be the followers, let's be the leaders on this thing in West Texas, we're, you know, we're hurting out here, so let's come up with these ideas that don't hurt us but help us and I think putting together a committee which I don't like you know things to be drawn out a long time on this. If we did this I'd like it to be done fairly quickly and let's move forward and you know see if it works. Russell, is that the development task force that the planning was working with? Craig, that was a development task force. Just to give you a timeline on that that group has been meeting where our next meeting won't be scheduled until our new planning director is in place, so that'll be in September when that meeting would actually happen. How many people are on that? It's a voluntary city staff and then anybody uses those. I have somebody though I would want to be on that, that's the person that's really pushing this to begin with. Sure. I'd like him to be in those meetings. Send us their name and we'll make sure they're invited. Okay. Thank you. Charlotte. Anytime I don't understand something, I write a letter to me and I address it dear dummy And that's when it comes to engineering, it's a deer dummy to me. But I looked at, I believe you provided some of the drawings

[0:51:13] that you were talking about how they should be done. And I was looking at the schematics of the drawing to be done properly, and the storage, the underground, the digging, the proper possibly pumps or motors. And I agree with Mr. Fleming. It looks rather expensive. And in comparison, if people did water harvesting by rain barrel off the roof down into barrels isn't that a lot less expensive than something like this, but I agree with Mr. Fleming that having this available to those who could afford it is the goal here, because that's the goal that I can support it, but water running off the roofs is less expensive than just as important of water harvesting. That's correct. That's correct. That's spot. And I'm not a deer dummy. Thank you. No. I think though that, you know, I think you've presented some more cost effective options and that yield a cleaner product, but if Rodney, and he seems to be more in touch than maybe I am with some who want to use this, I don't see it as a method that we need to prohibit. I don't think it's the best method, and it may be cost prohibitive to most to do it. But I'm not anti in the sense that it may be an option for some and may be more aesthetically pleasing than all of us having very large catchment systems off of our roof, even though that's the way I'm going with my gutters. One thing I'm interested in, though, again, it goes back to the task force that we had that looked at conservation methods and how I wanted them hooked into the Water Advisory Board because let's just say everybody, you know, won the lottery and they wanted the system, that's also affecting what water stays within the system and it is not used on private property.

[0:53:13] So I think it's, we need to address all of that and it's slightly more complicated if it were used more widespread. I'm not simply going to say this is only going to be used by five people. If we're willing to create an ordinance that allows this, I think we need to think about its impact on other systems like the Red Arroyo if we go forward with that. Everybody can't catch it on their property and we expect to still have something full. And I know I'm being a little bit extreme, but I think all of these things have to work together and one decision shouldn't be made separate and apart from other decisions. So I'd like to know, Daniel, how that might work. Okay. Yes, ma'am. We'll take a look at that as well. Whatever I just said. Okay. I'll write a letter to myself in a year ago. The impact, basically, of harvesting, and basically, that's less water that will be entering our system. So you want to kind of make sure that we do a comparison, make sure that we're good there as far as... Right, but we've created committees, we've created a board, and this, in a way, impacts that ever so slightly. I don't want one decision to be made again separate from another. Sure. Sure. Johnny. The only comment I had is I think you said, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you said this would be applied to commercial only and not residential? No. No, that was just my recommendation based on what we found, you know, pretty much the only other city that I've found as a comparison is City of Tucson, which Rodney had just pointed out to us, you know, their application is primarily geared towards commercial development, largely because, you know, a lot of commercial developments have large parking lots, larger buildings, things of that nature to be able to, you know, or have impervious surface to direct stormwater runoff. I'm good. Thank you.

[0:55:13] And this could affect your stormwater utility fee, I mean, in a sense. Charlotte. My question is for Ms. Guerrero because I'm not assuming that you would know this, but the process of changing or amending an ordinance, could you bring me up to date as to how long it would take to say if we had a plan today and we voted to change it or amend the ordinance, what is the process? My process is to come up with the amendments, the changes that we want to make present those to our legal department get their input. Go back and forth on that, you know, and then bringing it back to council for your approval. Two readings. Hello? Two readings. Two readings. Two readings. Before the two readings. Two readings. Two readings. Two readings. Can't hear out of this. Can't hear out of this. Sure. And that takes at least 60 days. I'm looking in this career of 90 days, get 90. Well, if you start combining the work that Russell will be doing, committee meetings and then bring them back for those two different readings, you could look at it by 60 to 90 days, actually. So it just really depends on how much it looks like. Laying a landmine here, fair warning. Okay. Thank you. Rodney. One of the things that Tucson was doing is, and you were describing that perfectly, but I think they have in their ordinance that the commercial buildings have to do this. It's a requirement. Okay, all right. Yeah, I believe it is a requirement that they have to do it, it's not a choice. I remember when we have a stormwater utility fee, but it's going to be a surface. So again, here we're now clashing with. I'm not asking for commercial at all. That's what I wanted to go back to. That's what I wanted to explain. I'm not asking for the commercial part of this. I'm asking for the residential part of this. So, but Tucson, and I want to make sure that we understand this as a board, that I'm not asking for what Tucson has. I'm asking us that we do something that's similar to them,

[0:57:15] but it'll be on the residential side. Okay. So that's what I'm asking for. And the other thing is on this ordinance, we're gonna have to change the ordinance anyways, because there was a lot of redundancy and a lot of things that were not correct in the way our water stuff is done. Correct, drink. And you're going through there and cleaning that all up. So we're gonna do something with this ordinance, no matter what whether it allow the curb cut or not allow the curb cut we're gonna have to change have changes done so you need direction from us we can do this by consensus yes yes so let's start with you Rodney you say go yes I say yes John go Charlotte yes Lucy Elizabeth there's your consensus there's your direction go with get it up with meeting with our development task force and revising the ordinance okay that all the questions public comment on this item thank you very much Rachel we appreciate you very much all right thank you Russell it is 10 o'clock let's call it about a 15 minute break and rolling and Dale I need to get with you before you get away and Joe Consider a resolution authorizing him Inflipping paint shipment of the course department water and sewer design standards and authorizing the department to make revisions to the design standards as they if you recommended that approved by the City Engineer from town to trustee? All right, thank you, sir. Yes, sir, I'm here to talk today about the Water and Sewer Design Manual. I'm going to go over the general purpose of this design manual, the review process that we went through to get where we're at today, and then some requested action at the end. The main purpose for the Water and Sewer Design Manual is to provide developers and engineers with standards and when they're designing their new subdivisions and putting in water and sewer infrastructure. Typically our local developers and engineers

[0:59:18] are very familiar with our standards, but when you get people from out of town that are trying to develop here, they don't always necessarily know what's required of them and this gives them a clear or more clear picture of what we're looking for in the engineering department. Gives us flexibility to revise design standards appropriately with standards that are developed in the field, any state and federal regulations as well. And it also provides us with a more timely response on plan reviews if the developers and engineers know what we're expecting of them. Ahead of time, they should be able to provide that and we should be able to review and provide comment accordingly. It also provides consistency in our comments back to our developers and engineers just having that set of standards. Our review process and how we came to this point today as we engaged our local engineers and developers through our development task force, as I spoke of earlier. We also met one-on-one with engineers and developers sat down face to face. We went to an HBA meeting which Rodney attended as well and gave their feedback on that. And then we made the appropriate changes based on those comments. Finally, the action that I'm requesting today is that this resolution will be approved with the understanding that the city engineer can make revisions from time to time. Yes ma'am. I have a question about the time to time thing. Yes. I believe that a design manual is very important and I believe it's for every reason you've said

[1:01:18] the development community needs to know what the rules are and if they don't work in town then as you say they're not regularly using them. But how do we have a manual that you modify without counsel approval and without the public being aware of? I have some concern if I'm understanding that correctly. Sure. No, we would not make this just a willy-nilly. We're going to make a change today. I plan on making an annual revision for the first couple of years to fine-tune things. or at least for what I foresee is that human error, there's a lot of detail within this design manual and we'll make public announcements as far as posting on our website. And I can even bring it to council again here and have a resolution to have a revision date, have an official revised water and sewer design manual. And what we'll have in what's in your background, too, is you know, it should have been in your background, is there would be a revised date on the front cover, and on every page of that document, saying this is the most current design standard. When I read this, Russell, I was stunned that we had never had this, because I think in all other aspects of development, there's something written. Correct. There's something that community has. Right, a lot of communities have this. Yeah, it's amazing to me, and unfortunate that we've never done this, so I applaud you for bringing this forward. I do believe that any design manual like this should be adopted by ordinance, and therefore, has to come back to council so that the development community is not surprised when an employee decides that they want to make a change, that it really needs to be vetted more publicly in doing that. So, right, my concerns were with having it codified within the ordinance, like what we've

[1:03:22] had with our drainage design manual, where we had design information within the ordinance and having a design manual, having things duplicated, I was just concerned with that. No, I would say that it's when it's codified, even though that is more arduous, it's still better for the public. Okay, that would be my recommendation well, too, and that's that that was one reason why I bought this a resolution today You know it actually is in the ordinance that references a design manual for water and sewer something that we do not have and so More reason why I'm bringing this here today. I would love to make the motion to adopt the resolution But would you say add to from time to time comma with council approval? Right. It needs to be done. It needs to be a council resolution. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, that sounds bad. Yeah. The council needs to approve any changes, even if a city engineer makes them. We need to know what they are. Even if they are redundant, we need. It's not by resolution. It would be by ordinance. So it's in the code. Okay. Sounds good. I'm going to have you need a you need to vote on this. I do. You do? Elizabeth, you made the motion to Okay. Okay. Okay. This is for a resolution authorizing implementation of public works department of water and sewer design standards. Any other further comments on this? Public comment on this item? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Put a 7-0 on that one. You'll see it. All right. Let's move on to the dog park discussion. I do want to make one announcement. We have a we have a consultant coming in on the pavement problem that we have had and he will be here at 11.30. So we will we will break for executive at 11.30 so that we can deal with him his on his schedule

[1:05:22] and then at 12 o'clock we have a special meeting with the coast of DC development board. So at 11.30 we will call a halt to this. We will go into executive. We will not be back probably until one o'clock. So if you're waiting for something on the agenda, we're going to just take them in line as we can, but at 11.30 we'll call a halt and we will go into executive. So if you see your item pushing, you might know that you need to wait a little bit. Let's go on number D, discussion of the poll, yes ma'am? I'm sorry. Discussion of the post dog park in consideration of approving matters related to location, construction and allocation of funds for development cost requested to council member former presentation by the parks director Carl White you are on sir yes sir good morning a few council meetings ago we were directed to come back to talk about the dog park specifically to talk about how we the city might be able to assist with fundraising efforts there's a private group raising funds they're getting close to the goal of 75,000 to construct the park they're nearer to that goal but there's still not quite there yet at the last time we talked to the City Council about a year ago, a little over a year ago we talked about the location of the dog park and we had a young Girl Scout who was leading efforts to help make that happen. And we talked about specifically this location around the Rederaria Trail Project, the Rederaria, and College Hills Boulevard as a possible location. Since that time, fundraising efforts have been going on. We've had a few discussion items with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, so we're here to talk to you about moving forward of the project, assisting with some funding, talking about recommending a location for that dog park, and specifically presenting to you the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The current situation, the Redderoy Trail, is progressing, looking at this fall for that project to be completed. The fundraising goal of 75,000,

[1:07:22] currently the group has raised about 66,000 in donations and pledges. As you recall, Amy Misele Flint came to the council meeting a few meetings ago and asked to get the word out about the PetSafe grant. That grant, we tried for that grant, but we didn't get it. The last item that we had recently is at the end of June, we took an item to the Parks Recreation Advisory Board, and they recommended to proceed with the specific site of 1AC, and I'll show that to you here in a moment. We've talked about different locations in the past, about possible dog parks, including a location near Lomuff Bridge. We kind of settled on the Red Arroya Trail location, primarily because there's lots of land available there, open space. The new trail was going on, so we'll have a lot of people out there recorating using the trail. It's easy to get to, it's off College Hills Boulevard. There would be new parking lots constructed, new restrooms added that could help support that activity there at that location. It's also in the rhetoric, so we don't necessarily have to irrigate the grass, because the grass is getting some moisture from the auroria. And there was another reason I can't remember. I'll come back to it. So we want to come to you and talk to you about specific locations that we've looked at and what those costs would be. We're going to start first with the third option, which is on the east side of College Hills Boulevard, to the swim and racquet club. That's option three. Looking at option three, it has good pros and some cons. This is what the layout could look like. These hash marks are the the flood zone of the retaroria. This shows that we would either use, get an easement on the property that belongs to the swim and racquet club through their paved area and then construct our own parking area and perhaps expand later

[1:09:27] if we needed to. This shows that same layout but if we constructed our own driveway in a parking space, a parking area here, here are the pros and cons, it is one large area which makes it easy. You can come from parking down a walkway and go into either the large dog area or into the small dog area. There is existing shade, there's several mesquite trees at that location, and only a small portion of that site is in the floodplain. In terms of cons, we would have to build additional parking or get an easement through to use the existing private parking that's there, and it is farthest of all the options from the public restrooms. Looking at costs, the The bottom line is it's because of the parking, it's far outside of our budget of $75,000. We could save some money if we had staff to construct the fence in-house, but still it would put us in well above our budget of $75,000. Another issue is to be honest, the parking here, the private parking lot does need a little bit of work. If we went to agreement with them, we would have to likely assist with improving their parking area. And, of course, we'd have to be in agreement with them, and we're not in control of the property, so it's not ideal. So that option is out of our budget, and the access is a little different. Looking at option two, option two is this large area to the west of College Hills Boulevard. In this situation, it's a large portion of it's in the flood plane. To get to it, we'd have to add a walkway, probably to about this location, where we'd have to split off large dog, small dog. So we'd have to add another walkway. Prose, it's one large area. It's very visible.

[1:11:28] The cons, it's not immediately close to the parking lots, would require some connecting walkways, mostly in the flood plane, which could be good and bad. And there's no existing shade. In terms of the budget, it is within our budget, and I show different options here, whether we add shade structures, add some piggytant tables with shade structures over them, or if we come in and add trees, which in my opinion is more ideal, but you don't start off with a lot of shade with new trees. But it would be better long-term. So that's option two, it is within budget. We looked at option one A, B. This is one A, this is one B. Here's the pros and cons it could be easily constructed within with the budget of 75,000 It's close to new parking lots close to the new restroom. It's highly visible in terms of cons It's separated. You've got quite a distance between the small dog area and the large dog area It's mostly in the floodplain, and there's no existing shade Here's the budget is well within the budget, and I would like to point out in my budgets. I don't have any figures in here for contingency which would be nice to have at least four to five thousand for contingency. Here is what the Parks Recreation Advisory Board recommended is to go with option 1A1C and this is the small dog park here off this new parking lot off College Hills Boulevard with a large dog park here as as part of option number two. Pros, easily constructed with the budget of 75,000, adjacent to new parking lots, highly visible, close to existing roads and accessible. And the cons, it's separated mostly in the floodplain and there's no existing shade. And I just remembered the other point I was gonna raise is that all these locations are fairly good,

[1:13:28] very good because they're well removed from residential areas. They're not right next to residential areas. Looking at the budget, we can do this easily with the 75,000 goal. Again, there's no contingency in there. So here's where we're at now. The private donations are currently at 66,000. We still think we need about $75,000 to make this happen with the budget you've seen plus some contingency funds. So we need at least an additional $9,000. There's a couple of funding possibilities. One would be COSA DC has since sales tax funds. There is an item at the meeting next week, or is it tomorrow, to present to COSA DC. If you would like to go that direction, we recommend that first. It is a legal way to do it. We have has since sales tax funds allocated to our parks improvements. This is a park, and we'd like to proceed with that way. We're gonna have to come back to you with a budget amendment anyhow. We do have an account set up to receive the monies, but we need to make sure we have the account set up to spend the monies as well as move money if you decide to move some money either from sales tax or general fund. The other option is general fund, either from budgeted savings, and for instance in parks where we haven't spent all of our water budget, thankfully, because we've had some rains or personnel savings. That is another option. So if funding is in place, will finish the construction designs and our plan would be to build that this winter and have it ready for next spring. I believe that's all I had. Some pictures here of just some some design and things we need to look at for design but that's all I had. I do think there are some folks from the public here that might want to speak to. I have a question Carl. Have you considered or tried the

[1:15:32] Health Foundation or for this say $10,000 grant from them. Can we apply for that? And the other thing is somewhere that I've read that the number two item that people the survey that people wanted in San Angelo was a dog park. That's correct. That was the people's request number two. That's correct. I can't remember what number one is but I know that this was number two. It's in our recent parks recreation open space master plan when we did the survey of all the respondents that came out as the number two recreation facility that folks wanted to have developed. We'd never seen that show up at all, and it showed up number two this last time. And the existing water from all of the rains that is there now preventing you to work, is that where the ponds are supposed to be going, and when it dries out enough to work? You've seen this construction of this pond here, there's large piles of soil, the soil will be removed outside. But the dark part is adjacent to that. Partly, this portion is where you see some of the piles of soil. OK, I've been in the area a lot, and the parking at the parks and stuff is there, and people that are already using the walk that is down gets quite congested, and you feel that the existing parking can handle an additional activity? Yes, with this new parking lot here, and this one here, there's going to be adequate parking. I truly would like to move forward with the project. Number one, the citizens want it. It's number two on their list. So close to the goal of volunteer dollars, I just would like a commitment that we will move forward and continue to strive to find private donations to go with this, but I want us to move forward. Carl, will you talk a little bit about maintenance? Will you talk a little bit about maintenance? Yes. We estimate that the cost for maintenance would be about $8,000 for the dog park itself. You add a little bit of maintenance because you have to work around the fences and pick

[1:17:32] up the trash and visit it on more occasions than you do now. That maintenance could be tied in with the maintenance of the new trail as well. But we estimate that cost to be an additional $8,000 a year. All right. Point I wanted to make the council was keep that in mind as we move forward with these typically our issue is eight thousand dollars doesn't sound like much and it's not but with that comes the staffing that we have to provide so as we add these facilities the Roya the river all those things keep in mind as we go through budget how important it is that we add staff to the parks department so that we actually can do the maintenance so just but you're reducing your maintenance by having it where you're already doing a lot of work with the parks and trails I I mean, combining. Yes, but this is would require more than that. That's, you know, those areas are more natural along the trails in the Arroya, and we're purposefully doing that to keep them as low-magnons as possible. This, of course, you're bringing people in, you're having dogs, you're having animals, you have a litter, you have, you know, all those things. So it's good because you're right, we're coupling it together, but it doesn't come without increased. Right, nothing's free. Elizabeth. Can you tell me a little bit more about the survey that y'all refer to? This is from the 2012 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Master Plan. We update our Master Plan every five years. And to do that, as part of that, we send out a citizen survey. And this time we did it on Survey Monkey. And it asked a series of questions what folks would like to see in terms of programming and facility development. Did we talk anything about that at the Council retreat when we were prioritizing projects? and I thought I would recall, but. I don't remember it. Looking back when we discussed this in March, I thought we were following a path of private funds. I thought we were following a path of completely privately funded.

[1:19:33] I personally am not interested in using public funds for this project. As Councilwoman Farmer said, I'd like to see us work a little harder at completing the project with private dollars, but this has not been on my radar as a high priority, and perhaps I've missed something, and if I have, I'm sorry. But I think if I look back at the council priorities, I'd rather stay focused on some of those and let the private sector handle this like I thought they were going to. It's my feeling. I also, one last thing Mayor, also with Rick's question, we agreed that when we presented projects that had ongoing maintenance that we would have that quantified. And depending on which option, if the council chooses to go forward, I think we need a much better handle on that. Because as you know, we get ourselves in a difficult situation and would continue to develop, but we never really properly set aside those ongoing maintenance funds. You probably know that better than any director in the city. And I think with that said, on the maintenance component, I mean, in the parks budget this year, they did turn in request, of course, four crews that would help accommodate these things. So those requests are in there and we can put that together and put it in to a presentation in the future as well. It's ready. Rodney? A couple questions for you. One is the new parking lot that's right there at the corner of what is it? Southwest and is it Mill? What runs in right there beside that? Just North. This is Middlebrook and College Hills? Millbrook. Millbrook. The new parking lot that they're working on right now, there's a lot of standing water right there beside it. Are they going to fix that? I'm sure. This is an engineering project, but the project's not complete. And I believe we have a situation where the drains are being blocked by piles of soil, so it's just backing up.

[1:21:33] OK. Because I've had several people ask me about that. And I don't want us to create new lakes that shouldn't be there. I'm sure we're not going to accept it if it's not done. Perfect. As my point of view on this, and this is going to surprise a lot of people, but I think that we should be going through with this project. I like that we are as a public coming through, and they're donated $66,000 or pledged $66,000 so far. But when I look at the other cities throughout the state and also throughout the nation, dog parks are a huge deal. Most cities of any size have dog parks, and they get through. I think this is more of a quality of living type thing where when we build parks, this should have been on our radar to put it in as a park to begin with, for our residents. And it always amazes me in the business that I'm in, of how many people own dogs. And it's a lot, it's a great, great number. And so I think this is something I would like for us, you know, if they're gonna be sure, I think that we need to try to figure out how we can come up with some money on this. Again, I know I'm surprising people on this, but I think this is something that's very important to the city as a whole to make sure that we get a nice dog park. And I would like it to be as nice as the, I think you keep showing the round rock dog park. Oh, wait. Cedar, that's a little like park. Cedar park. The round rock one is the really nice one, and I think Johnny had brought up that one. It's really, really nice. Sure, we're gonna be able to do something quite that nice, but I want it to look good as well as be functional. So I think that we need to figure out when we need to come up with the money. I'm in favor of the one A1C recommendation that you put forward and I'd like to move that we move forward with that. Do I have a motion and a second to accept the one eight? Does that also include putting the funds together to make it work? Well, I don't know.

[1:23:33] I think that they're so close right now. They're $9,000 off on, which part of the funds are you talking about? You're talking about the yearly funds? No, you're talking about the $9,000. I mean, your motion was that we accept 1AC as a little question. I'll put a motion together for that. We'll put together the rest of the funds that need to be done. And that's your second? Yeah, I wanted to point out, it is. And it has been on the radar as future projects. And it's in the list that you had provided. And I can't remember exactly where, if it was over the floor, when we had a retreat that we talked about the items the survey, but that did come up. I think the location is an excellent use for the site and the land that is there. In my 40 years, however long, you know, here there's not anything there except the little unidad part, you know, that's come along, and I think it's excellent use of the land in that area. John, I was going to say a lot of the Southern Rodney said, you know, I applaud the folks that came up with the $66,000 for this idea. I have and I talked to Carla a number of months back when I when I did visit the one in Round Rock and it was a it's a beautiful location and the bottom is the quality of life for not only the the folks the the animal owners but for the the animals themselves and for them to come this close and for us not to move forward with it, I think it's wrong. I mean $66,000 came from folks that pay taxes anyway and this is something that the folks in town want they pay taxes so it's not like we're just throwing their money away. Sure there's a lot of folks out there that don't have animals but this is I think it's vital for us to see the future of San Angelo where we're going, we are a growing city and this is, I mean,

[1:25:34] it's an amazing conception of what you guys came up with, with the advisory board and all. I echo the what Roddy says about the locations is perfect, you know, it's centrally located. At first I thought maybe the lone wolf area, but it didn't work, that's fine. This is perfect. And I would, again, hate to come this close and not move forward on it. So I'm going to, you know, vote for this project and wherever we get the funds from, we'll find it and we'll make it work. And then maybe the time early and the folks out there will realize, hey, we have skin in the game and if they can contribute around to even maintenance or whatever it is. You know, I think folks will step up to the plate. So I like the idea. I'm going to vote for it and just wanted to get that out. Marty, do you have any? Lucy? Yes, sir. Well, I think it's an excellent location. I'm all for that. But we made the decision as a council last year. And I think it was a unanimous vote that we would be glad to provide a place to put this, but they had to come up with the money. And I'm really a little concerned that we're changing right in the middle of direction that we gave last year when this first came up now if they've got 66,000 and they need 9,000 more I think this would be the the catalyst that would say listen here's where we are it's we've got a location let's do it but we still have our part of the obligation and there there was an obligation on the part of the people that wanted this dog part they would raise the money so I'm all for the for the location but I think they need to fulfill the obligation that we have already made in the conditions and they need to come up with the money and if they're just $9,000 away I think they can do it. If you're not going to start to winter they've still got four or five months to work but I'll support the location but I'm not going to support put in public money. I agree and and I would I don't know if we can call for the vote or whatever but I also don't like us

[1:27:39] at all talking about Costa DC funds until the Costa DC meets and talks about it because otherwise there's no point in having a coast to DC to meet and discuss anything if the council's going to spend their money days or weeks before they get a chance to look at it. So let the records show that I agree with the mayor and that we I would I am also in favor of the location. I'm in favor of the project but I also think that there's enough time for the private sector as they intended raise the remainder of the funds. And I'll go back to our our part deal that you brought forth well it was two years ago where you needed some money to put on your your Fiesta to open up our park and we said no and you were able to go out and get the money and you did very well but it gave you the it gave you the encouragement and the incentive to go out and get the money to finish it and I think this will do the same thing. So do I have let's have public comment on this before we call for our vote, who wants to start? Come ahead, ma'am. Come ahead, John. Okay. You know the drill. Give your name if you got that. I am John Barrio. And although I am the president of the Costa DC board, I stand here not as that position, simply as a common citizen. The dog park has been talked about for literally decades. I was part of a very early effort that sprouted and fizzled almost as quickly as green grass here in Texas before rain but that being said regardless of where the funding comes from be it public or private we have literally thousands of pets here in San Angelo they are unregistered they are unlicensed pets the city has an ordinance requiring that pets be licensed one of the ground rules it should be at any dog park and it's been posted at every one I've ever visited is

[1:29:40] that only those pets with current tags be permitted and vaccinations. The tool that this will be will have far more than just economic impact or cost. It'll be a tool that our animal services folks can use for the active registration and participation with the community to get that those registrations done. I was raised in the city of Carney, New Jersey. About two-thirds of its land was swamp land, the Hackensack Meadowlands outside New York City. During the 60s and 70s, most of that industrial land was garbage dump for the metropolitan area. We had a huge rat problem as big as nutrient down here. As an effort to vaccinate more animals, all of the veterinarians in town would gather at the various firehouses. One day, say Fire Station 1, the next day is Fire Station 2. Anyone that needed tags or vaccinations came and got them at extremely low cost. It helped the veterinarians increase their customer base because people got to meet a vet. It increased the popularity of having your animal registered and vaccinated. I see the prospect of this dog park park, being a tool of incredible value to accomplish that. The annual costs for maintenance, every dog park I have ever been to has a secure donation box at the gate, where the same people who support producing or implementing the park can also support its maintenance. And as for me in my household, we would gladly use it and support it on a maintenance level. So I really think that those costs are going to be offset by private donations in an ongoing

[1:31:44] fashion so long as the public is openly and actively invited to participate. As for the funding, if the monies are selected to come from public funds, I've asked for but have not yet seen the numbers, how much of the sales tax collected by the city, particularly the half cent sales tax because that's where my board interest is, has come from the purchase of pet related products. Our public has already supported it merely by owning their animals. Thank you for your time. Thank you, John. Good point. Next. My dog toys and coats and rattles cost me a fortune every year. Yes, ma'am. Hello. My name is Stephanie Trevino. Recently getting married in my future, me and my husband, we do hope to have children of our own. But for now, my two dogs, Jackson, Dagger, are babies. And anytime we do anything, we're always trying to think of them. You know, I'm pretty sad. I stay at home sometimes just so my dogs don't have to be alone. Whenever we go traveling out of town, we always try to take them with us and one thing we always do is any town We're going in or when we're traveling through we look for dog parks We always make an effort to stop there and I know some of the comments made earlier about like with the water and things of that sort We've even gone to dog parks where they're immensely covered in water And we'll still throw our dogs in there You know what their dogs they get nerdy and you bring your towels and you take care of business that way I don't I am a little intimidated being here. I came because of of the Facebook page. I'm a big supporter of this for about, since it became, I went to a few of the fundraisers, try to give money as much as I can, and they asked for someone to be here. And I said, you know what? I'm going to be here because I am a big advocate for the dog park. And I feel like just alone on the Facebook, we have over 2,000 supporters. We've raised this money, and I mean from what I've heard from you guys.

[1:33:48] Obviously it's something we want to go forward with, and I just want to let you know as a citizen of the community, Like, I really hope it's something we can make happen because dog parks are amazing and they do do a lot for the dog and for the people, you meet other people and it is in an enclosed area, you know, we're the ones responsible for, you know, you can build up with the maintenance but then also we can help with that. And I just feel like it will be a great asset for the community and a lot of people will become on board once it's here too. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Hope we didn't scare you. I had to win real. Did we talk about, I can't remember this, did we talk about having a sponsorship at one time for this park in order to pay for the maintenance? Yes. Didn't we talk about that? Because we've done that with the baseball fields and soccer fields and- It's good idea. I don't remember. I think that we can put that out there, 8,000 to me for a big business, doesn't sound like a big deal for yearly budgets. It's a good idea. You know, to have XYZ sponsor them for the year for $8,000 or whatever and pay for that part of it. So I thought we had mentioned it, but I don't think we'd really taken it. I don't remember, but it's a, I think we could, I bet we could get somebody. It's definitely possible. I've already talked to city-wise about the possibility. I'm sure a business would come up and want to sponsor that. It would be a good thing for them. Any other public comment on this? Well, we do have a motion that we accept option one A as the place to put it. And C. and see, yeah, one A and one C. And that we also put the $9,000 into it, public money to make this work if needed, and that we take this to Costa DC as one option. Another option would be general fund, but the motion was is that we provide the money to make this thing work. Is that right? That's correct. Is that right on the same? Mayor? Yes, sir.

[1:35:48] It says nine to 12,000. So how specific do you want to be? I would say even the 12,000. I'm fine with that. I like how Charlotte worded that. It's up to and let them finish out the funding before we start drawing the money. Yes, ma'am. Rodney, would you consider splitting the vote and approving the location separate from the funding issue since you also came up with another idea for fundraising? I think he was talking about ongoing maintenance. Yeah, I'm talking about maintenance mostly more than that. I don't want to do that because I think it might have a better chance of getting the vote. I don't want to vote against the location. I just don't want to vote for the funding. I want to leave them together. You want to leave your second together? I haven't supported Rodney. Yeah, this will be up first. The day is rising. There's no way to run from this, but it's out there. Charlotte, leave your second together. I have a question for clarification. If it is the public funds, Roland has an item at the Costa DC board. So it, either that or journal fund? Yes. We'd have to come back with a budget amendment anyhow. Right, okay. So if we don't need to use this and Roland figures out how they can get that money, I would rather them get it than it come out of. Really those dollar fund of Costa DC though would simply come out of there. They're currently parked designated dollars. So the contingencies in contingencies related to parks so it would just it wouldn't be additional funds that Roland is allocating It would come out of those dollars, which are already allocated for park purposes right or or in contingencies Yeah, I like it But we really want the public to come up We really want the private to come up with the money first so that there is no public money involved So that's that's number one number one plan Mayor. Yes, sir. I do Carl have one last question. I looked into my notes. So there's 70,000 or whatever it is. What kind of bathrooms are we talking about? The bathrooms are going

[1:37:54] to be at you that part. Right. Right. Right. Now there are portable restrooms here at you that park. I think it's at this location right here. But as part of the Red Royal Trail project, new restrooms are being built at this location. So. Now with this funding that with the no separate it's separate it's part of the trail project funding the state grant and the other matching funds And our portion of the our matching portions out of general fun into this red or oil It was almost a million dollars. So we've already got a dog in this fight. I think it was nine eight hundred I think eight ninety It was close to nine hundred thousand dollars We have a dog we have a dog in the five, but we didn't have a dog park in the fight We have a dog in the fight. Anyhow, we do have a motion, we do have a second. Is there any further public comment before we take a vote? If not, we'll call for the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Raise your hand. That's one, two, three, four. That means it's going to be three nays, so it will carry four to three. Let's move on. We have 30 minutes. Okay, we're doing well. Alrighty, number E is Consideration of Charter Review Committee's Recommendation of propositions to be placed on the election ballot in November 215 presentation by the charter review committee Who's going to get a start candy? Cross-trained Brian does it all Go candy good morning, sir Mayor, Council, my name is Candy Poole, and I serve on the Charter Review Committee that

[1:39:58] you formed for the purpose of looking at the San Angelo Charter and making recommendations back to you if there were any proposals that we would like to bring to you. I would also tell you that our Chairman, Trinidadogari, wishes he could be here today. He's in Russia, and he is due back on Thursday. Our co-chairman, Harry Thomas, as you know, has had some heart surgery, and he was unable to be with us today. So you get me. But I do have some in the audience with me from the committee. I have Jim Turner, who's also with me today, and Joe Munoz, so that if we have any questions that together we could answer for you. There's more of us here than just me. And I believe John Mark Hogue was here earlier, but he had- You didn't leave? Okay. I thought he lived. Yeah. Okay. We're waiting. Correct, Brian? Yes. All right. It's loading. I would like to say on behalf of all of us, the seven of us, we thank you for the opportunity to work on this. It's been very interesting. It's had a lot of time for the committee on this. We've done a lot of asking the public for their input and asking the public for information that they would like to bring to us on the different ideas that were proposed. We also had three public forums. We met at any committee meeting or organizational meeting that we were asked. We went to Kiwanas. We were on Good Morning, San Angelo, whatever that's called. We were at the Home Builders Association, the San Angelo Association of Realtors.

[1:42:00] We were at the Tea Party. We brought it to any organization that wanted to hear the different information pieces to the propositions that were being looked at. We also had an online survey, and that online survey, Anthony helped us put that together. And we had over right at 100 replies to that survey. And we took a little poll with that survey as it happened. And so I have some of those figures as well to bring forward to you if you have questions on that. I would tell you that the committee brought forward to you today or is bringing forward to you today, recommendations of proposals for the election in November, on November 3rd. I would tell you also that we are not adamant and I will not be standing here fighting one thing or another against it. The proposal is what it is and it's for the citizens to decide whether they like it or they don't like it or they understand it or not. The committee is not here to say it's got to be this way or another way. So we'll start with section 8 of our charter. There are 10 proposed propositions for you to consider and proposal number, section 8 is term of office. The City Charter currently provides for this, a two-year term for Mayor and City Council members with annual elections. The Mayor and the Single Member Districts 2, 4, and 6 are elected in the odd number years and Single Member District 1, 3, and 5 in the even number years. That is what is currently provided. The proposition would be that the terms be four-year terms for mayor and county, excuse

[1:44:05] me, council members, and that we have bi-annual elections resulting in a savings between 30 and 50,000. We had at first thought it would be around 25 to 30. Brian has done a little more research on that, and we could probably save a little more by not having an election every year. The effective dates that this would cause is that with the election that just happened in May, then the mayor and the city of single member districts 2, 4, and 6 would then be elected again in 2017, filling their two-year now that they've been elected, and then in 2017, the four-year term would begin, and single-member districts 1, 3, 5, and the police chief would begin that four-year in 2019, so that their election in 2016, which will be in May, would be a three-year term in order to move them to 20,000, 19, in order for it to begin to to be a four year and as you can see 17, 19, every other year there would be an election and it would be a four year term for the office of mayor or council member. Also in section eight and we separated this out is term limits. The city charter currently has no term limits imposed upon the mayor or the council members. The proposal is that no person shall serve as mayor or council member for more than eight consecutive years, and that could be two four-year terms if the four-year term of office is passed or four two-year terms if it does not pass.

[1:46:08] The reason for the splitting is because we felt like the two should be separate. The public may decide that they like the two year, but they also might like term limits or vice versa. So we split them so that the public can give us their input at the election time. Then in section nine on qualifications, the city charter currently does not clearly delineate the qualifications provided for candidates that are seeking election for mayor or city Council and also being the same qualifications required to hold those offices. They're not separated out. Not clear. Proposition section 9 would be that qualifications for candidates seeking election and for holding office of those offices would clearly be these. 18 years of age or older, a resident of the city would be for the mayor. A resident of a single member district for council members shall not be an employee of the city of San Angelo and shall not hold any other elected office. This would speak to the fact that the qualifications would be both for running for an office and retaining that office or holding that office once you're elected. Excuse me. Yes. Where does the issue come in of having some sort of financial relationship or contract with the city? If you'll let me get to the very next one we're addressing that conflict of interest. Can I ask the question here and the qualifications I thought there was something in there that they had to be a resident of that district for six months or more. It's in there somewhere.

[1:48:13] Yes, that residence would be for six months. Six months, yeah. But what we're putting together here is that to seek that office that would be that six months but also obviously once you're elected you had already fulfilled that. But what we're really wanting here is that if you're holding the office that you continue to live in your district you continue not to be an employee of the city and so forth and have another elected office. To address Councilman Grindstaff's question, we did split out in the qualifications about the conflict of interest. The next one, in section 9, under qualifications in our city charter currently, it does not provide for any procedure for the Council to address conflict of interest. This was something that was talked about at great length, and our proposal is this, that there be an added provision that any question that the council may have regarding a conflict of interest of the mayor or a council member's ability to serve or to vote on an issue shall be referred to the city attorney for a legal opinion. And rather than putting it on the council to make that decision on conflict of interest, we felt it very strong that the legal counsel of the city should be asked to make that decision in way in on the state of Texas laws on serving under conflict of interest. We did visit with Theresa about this on Friday, our new city attorney, and she agreed that that That would be a good way to move that forward and out of the council from having to make those decisions. Any other questions on that? I'm going to have questions on it, but if you want to move through the rest of your presentation,

[1:50:16] I can ask. Okay. The next one is section 10 on compensation and attendance. The city charter currently has the mayor at $600 per year, which is $50 a month. members at $41.67 a month at $500 a year. The compensation was last addressed and changed in 1947, 67 years ago. Section 10's proposition is that the mayor's compensation be $4,200 a year, or that being $350 a month, and council members $3,600 a year payable in monthly installments of $300 a month. Charter number proposition on section 14 regarding vacancies. The city charter currently has that when an election is required to fill a vacant seat for either a mayor or a council member, a special election will be held within 90 days of the creation of that vacancy. Excuse me. Could you back up, not to that one before, it says compensation and attendance. Yes. We left it. We left it. We left it. We left it unaddressed because we felt like that in San Angelo right now. The current is $10 for missing. And we did not believe that attendance should be part of this. In fact, I think we were supposed to take that. Well, the section is compensation in attendance, but they're just not adding any additional language or taking any away from me.

[1:52:17] What's over there? That's the way it's titled right now. So it should be title compensation. Just they might propose that. In the charter, it already has provisions about attendance. So that's just the section. Okay. We did not address, we talked about and did address and talk about attendance, but felt there was no need to make a change to the provision already there. Okay. So under vacancies, the proposition, this was also a state law Senate bill. We're trying to, as a city charter, come in compliance with some state law that we could have as vacancies go and our proposition is to amend to provide that when an election is required to fill a vacant seat for the mayor or the council member the election be held on the first uniform election date under state law no sooner than 30 days after ordering the election and our two uniform dates are November and May and so if you were to have a vacancy October the 15th obviously because of this the 30 days would have to be there there would not be 30 days your election would be in May and we can do that by state law and just have two uniform election dates. Under Under charter section 47, called initiative, referendum, and recall, we have separated this into two and making two proposed changes to this section. Currently, the city charter requires a person signing a petition for an initiative, a referendum, or a recall to provide voter registration number, and this is not a state law requirement, but

[1:54:17] our charter requires that our problem on that one on that one on a let's say on a recall election did y'all discuss on having because we are from single-member districts that the the people on the petition would have to be in that single member districts area we did not discuss that sir but I would say that because of the election and maybe Jim can better speak to this but because of the election that would be the same as recall. Okay. Well, one of the issues you're dealing with here is we also have election code that covers any of these special elections and those people would have to be out of the district involved just because I'll state election code. It's not something that has to be addressed there because of that and we don't want to add to confusion. Okay. No, I'm fine with it. Thank you. Our position is to amend by deleting the requirement that a person signing a petition in an initiative, referendum, or recall provide that voter registration number. Again on Section 47, the charter currently calls for requiring notice that the initiating committee of an insufficient number of valid signatures on a petition be by a certified male. And the proposal is to amend to delete the requirement that notice be provided by a certified male to the initiating committee of an insufficient number of valid signatures on a petition, by permitting a more timely means of notice to be utilized, something more technological, such as email.

[1:56:18] Also in section 47, the city charter currently does not provide a moratorium on any city council substantive amendment to an ordinance adopted by initiative or prohibit adoption of an ordinance substantially the same as an ordinance previously repealed by referendum. Probably this, it's hard for me to understand as well, but in the discussion, there is no moratorium for the city council to come back and change an initiative or to do a recall, excuse me, a re-adoption of an ordinance that was already there when the citizens called the initiating committee bring forward and it's voted on by the citizens. And so the charter does not provide for a time frame. The proposition that we have is to amend to provide that no ordinance adopted by initiative or repealed by referendum may be substantially changed or re-adopted for six months except by super majority vote by the council. Six months and then it takes a super majority prior to that. Did prior councils not adopt that as a matter of policy? Yes, we did. We did it when we were talking about the dogs, the amount of dogs that an an individual could have at home. And we did say that six months, once it was adopted, it could not be changed for six months, except by a super majority vote. So yes, that has already been adopted by ordinance. But it's not, but it's not. Mayor, this is specifically speaking to initiatives, referendums, or recalls. That one spoke to ordinances passed by the council to give it six months of.

[1:58:19] And also not, it was not relevant just since we brought it up. it wasn't relative to zoning because that's specifically discussed in state law. OK, but I remember the council. Yeah, I remember that in this will. So basically, this amendment would track what you've already done with the court. It's just broader for referendums, initiatives, and recals. It broads it from more than just ordinances. Right. Well, it basically talks to what a citizen's group has brought forward or has to be a referendum, which would be to undo. And we also did the same thing with the tears to take money from one tears to another requires a super majority vote. So it just extends it. Okay. Okay. And then in section 60, Chief of Police, the city charter currently provides that the Chief of Police is an elected office with a four-year term. The proposition to amend, to provide that the Chief of Police be appointed by the city manager, subject to approval of the city council as with all other senior officials of the city of San Angelo. Mr. Mayor, I don't know if you would like to take comments now, questions now before I move forward with the last piece of information or how you would like to handle that. I'll be glad to have Jim and Joe help me at the podium. of these, I don't have a problem with some I do. Now, all we're doing though, all we are doing is a council is authorizing this to be placed on the ballot. So regardless of where we vote, it's not changing or amending anything. All we're doing is allowing it to be on the ballot. Something to be on the ballot. Yes, something to be on the ballot. And we can change what's on the ballot. I guess let's take public comment and then we'll take these. Can I add some clarification

[2:00:25] on that. What action you take here today would allow the city legal staff to review this and then it would be brought back to you before the ordering of the election. So changes to specific language can still be made even after today. Let's take public comment and then we'll discuss it a little further. Do we have public comment on this item before we make any directions or any directive inferences or suggestions. Come on, John. I apologize for not stepping up earlier. I just now thought of it. Again, I'm John Mario. And the one question I would have is on the term limits. What I saw on the slide referred to four or two year terms or two four year terms. There was no mention of standing down for a term before possibly going for election again. Was it a lifetime limit or? No. Pardon? Consecutive. Yes, I saw it said consecutive, but again, does it or does it not intend to be a lifetime limit? The intention of the charter review committee was to allow them to set off for one and then come back to run it. Yes. And then the other question I would have would be in the event that a seated councilman after a person's term limit had expired, being removed from the council, could that person be brought back as an appointee or would it have to be just as election? How do we replace a council person in the event of an incapacitation or case in point when Fred Adams was removed from the council. It's a remote. Okay. You reside. Okay, resigned. I apologize for the misstatement.

[2:02:25] I cannot personally remember if we've made an appointment to bring someone back or if that was an election. There was, there was a suggestion to bring someone back, but it has to be a unanimous decision by the council and we had dissent from final one, I know. And since there was a dissent, there was not a unanimous decision. So we waited until the next election cycle. we just left the seat unfilled. Which raises again that question. Could a prior council person who was standing down for a term be appointed to that slot? Yes. Should we address that? State law allows for them to appoint by a unanimous decision of council. Okay. So we're gonna fill until the next election. Just wanna make sure there wasn't a halt. Thank you. And that's the key word unanimous. Unanimous. Cause that's the same problem we had with the mayor decision in 06. We couldn't come up with the unanimous. So we waited until we had another election. Any further public comment on this? What do we want to do? We want to take these one time, Rodney? I have a few comments. Okay. A couple of things. One, on the terms, you are recommending the four-year term, what was the thought process on that, and why not a three-year term instead of a four? That was specifically, I can actually speak to that, was specifically to it would go in line with where the chief of police is already elected every four years and what that would cause is if if that is not passed if you had one every three years you would have no savings from any election you would have an election every year if you have it every four years then you have an off year in between where there's significant savings to the city's general. So that was the thought process. Well, there's a number of thoughts to went into the four-year terms, one of which talking to a lot of different people who've been in office, watching politics and so on. The

[2:04:28] consensus is pretty much that after the first two years you're just finally starting to know what's going on. It takes a long time to actually learn this job and do it well. Four years seemed to be a good link to time, about the right link to time to where people, by the time they finished, you've actually got several years worth of work out of them. Besides, we also mentioned the cost savings, we don't have the 30,000 to 50,000 every year. Third process was also one of the issues we hear with a a lot of elections is as soon as you get elected, as soon as you know what's going on, you're running for an election again. This gives you another two years to actually work for the city where you don't have to worry about getting elected. That length of time there gives more time for deeper analysis, longer projects. Last thing is a lot of the elections we're seeing right now, especially in a presidential year, in the even years, There is so much noise from the rest of the politics out there. It's hard to run for mayor or police team, for council member, when all the political advertising out there is for president, governor, congressmen, and all these other thousands of political issues that happen in the even years. If we can concentrate our elections and the odd years are people who would normally be running in the even years are actually going to have a better shot at getting their voice out to the public. And the public will actually have a better shot at knowing what their steady councilman is planning. So that's the thought process that we went through. It's more than just cost savings. That's actually kind of a fringe benefit. What we're looking for is a long-term,

[2:06:28] motivated, informed council member that the public really knows what's going on And they've actually got enough time to do the job. That's the thought process. Which I can attest to that. I mean, it takes two years, a solid two years, to figure out the ins and outs of this job. It's a very difficult job to learn. The next thing I would like to bring up is the pay. Rodney, can I ask a question along the same lines? Yes. Jim, how close does this align us to either school board or county by going this route? Or does it? Well, the school board would actually pretty much tag along with us, and that would actually end up being in cost savings for the school district. The county, they're fixed by law, they're going to be on the even years just like presidential and all the other parties and races that are. They don't have a choice. But this will get us out of that noise. Our police chief will not be running against the sheriff at the same time, for example, or a county judge or anything like that. All of those county offices will have their own election and the city will have its own election and it will have a lot more visibility because we're not competing with the rest of the country over what voters need to know. Randy? The next part of the questions that I have and discussion I'd like to have is on the pay you guys recommended that $350 for the mayor, $300 for a council member. First of all, I don't think that's probably fair to the mayor. The mayor's job involves a lot more hours than a regular sitting council member. So I would like to see it more like, you know, closer to 500 for the mayor and maybe lowering down the council persons in order to make up for that money or something like that. Did y'all, what was your thought process? Well, Rodney, we did a lot of research on this.

[2:08:28] We researched many cities within our same size across Texas. We talked with even past council members. I've visited with several of you about how many hours you felt like that you spent on council business and we did do a lot of research on this. One of the things that we did find was that there was not any city that did anything tied to another entity such as cost of living raise or anything. It was always a specific dollar amount. You would be surprised we had everything from a dollar a year in Abilene to $500 in one of the cities, I think it was Amarillo off the top of my head. in between that we did, I did some specific research on, I talked with the Texas Workforce Commission and several other entities, the Texas Research Center at A&M, and just got some feedback and some ideas. The city of San Angelo's citizens in 2007 had an opportunity to raise the compensation level, but it was tied to something and it failed. It didn't fail by much, but it did fail. And so with all of the information we had, a dollar amount was the better way to go. And coming up with 350 to 300 and the 300, it was just really by $1 per hour kind of thing within a medium price range but in a medium time frame. So your point about $500 was brought to us by a past council member. We also had a member of the public stand up and say something about $1,000.

[2:10:32] And so we took all of those things into consideration. We had a, on the survey, 100 people on the 350 for the mayor and the 300 for the council. I want to say that, let me give you an exact, the survey that we took, 68% are for that amount and 31% either didn't think it needed to be raised or thought it should be something different. And so we felt like we were in the ballpark and not too high, but yet to give a better compensation after 60-something years of it not being changed at all. Yeah. Can I ask a question following that? I appreciate the survey work. That's, I mean, it's very interesting and I remember Abilene being a dollar a year. We used to hear it all the time. What do you think that number, though, represents? not our mileage, it's not our time spent, it's fairly arbitrary. In your mind, what does that number that you're proposing represent? A very low per hour wage. And that's basically what we came up with. We do believe that the average is between 15 and 20, 22 hours a week on City Council business. If you take that 300 and divide it by those hours, you'll see that it's $4 or $5 an hour, much less than the minimum wage today. The San Angelo citizens that put on the survey or were at the forums, those that spoke against the dollar really was that you as a council or any council from this time forward had the knowledge of what that dollar compensation was prior to running for your office and therefore some

[2:12:33] of the conversation was on the negative side, more about you don't run to serve, you volunteer to serve and there was no need to make any compensation change. So we weighed both sides and sort of came to a middle. When I've had my neighborhood chats, we talked a little bit one night about the charter, and you know, I personally, like you said, didn't run for any sort of reimbursement. I think it's a civic duty, and I think those of us that are up here see it that way, I don't think you could pay anybody enough to do this, and so it's really hard for me to ever kind of get my arms around any number. I appreciate the fact that you recognize that it hasn't been addressed in many, many years. But I, for one, am not going to vote for increased compensation because I just, I think that it's, it doesn't have much purpose. It can't begin to take, you know, compensate us. Sean, and future counsel as well. Well, they are looking at and amending the charter, so what I hear you saying is you would want to take it completely out of the charter instead of having an increase in the charter. My question, though, is it going to stay like that for another 67 years? Are you building in some sort that this doesn't have to come up again and again? There is no built-in change mechanism. If it's changed to this, that's what it will stay until it's changed again. And one of the other things that we did discuss, and we probably don't emphasize it very much, there are, from what I've seen, a lot of unreinversed expenses that you really can't put down. And this is in some ways, both to be able to deal with some of those,

[2:14:33] and also it's another way for the citizens to say thank you for your service. It doesn't have to change, and my thoughts on it are, If we if probably should be changed either up to something like this or down towards as low as we can say that you're still getting paid maybe the dollar level so that it is very obvious that it is completely voluntary. There is no pay for this. You can't pay enough for this. Thank you. Council we need to make a decision before we go any further. We've got the people coming in from a paving company that want to meet with us and we have a coast of DC meeting at I'll make a motion to direct the city attorney to prepare a ballot language for the approved propositions and compliance with state law. That means it comes back to us again and we can move on. I'll send out a good way to handle it. And you can make changes. As presented on all of them and we can make changes after this. And when we get the language as it is going to be on the ballot then we can change or we can kick them out or we can do what we want to do with it. And please remember our new attorney, that we're not attorneys up here. So the language, you know, layman. That sounded like a good deal. Any other comments on that? So the motion has been made. It was, who's seconded, Rodney? I did. Rodney, okay, the motion has been made that we direct our attorney to prepare a violent language for approved propositions in compliance with state law and bringing back to us for a decision. We do them then one at a time. Public comment on this, a call for the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. put a 7-0 on it and I am now taking us into executive. Thank you Charter Review Committee. Thank you very very much. That's a very hard job. Thank you very much. Open the executive session under the provisions of government code Title V open government at subtitle A open government chapter 551 open meeting sub chapter D exceptions requirement the meetings be open under the following section section 551-0712 You can consult with attorney on the matter in which to do you, the attorney of the governmental

[2:16:34] body, and the Texas disciplinary rules, professional conduct, state bar of Texas, clear to conflicts with chapters regarding the Texas water partnership. Section 5510718 to consult with attorney with the government of body, seeks the advice of attorney about thinning or competent plating litigation regarding the 213 seal coat program that's 1137. I take this into executive. 1207. It is 1206. We are through with our executive session. I am reopening our City Council meeting. The meeting is now open. Now we are going into a special meeting with the City of St. Angelo Development Board which means that I must end this meeting. I must recess this meeting and then reconvene the meeting in the executive room with the Costa DC Board at which time after that is done we will come back and reopen this meeting again for the completion. Did I say that right ma'am? Yeah. Will that work? Works for me. Okay so it's probably now 1207. Let's go to let's go to the special meeting with Costa DC. It is 109 and I am calling this meeting back to order. We are where did we get to to item number F. I would ask the council if you will allow this since AJ is here and since we have a member of the tears board here I would like to pull let me find the number here. Tears board that would be 3K. I would like to pull item K to the front And let's go ahead and handle this. And then we'll go on with the rest of our agenda. Do I have a, Rodney's arrive with you? Marty? Yeah. John? Yes sir. Charlotte? Lucy?

[2:18:34] Elizabeth? Okay, we will pull then K up to the front. This is discussion and consideration of approving. Number one, modifications to the tears board in cine policy for two five, two oh one five as it relates to distribution of monies and deadlines for project completion. Number two, modifications to the tears board in cine and he's agreement for 215 relating to the same, number three, funding recommendations from the tears board for 2015 and four, creating an additional application when to for two, two, two, one, five, Ms. Fauver, you are on, ma'am. Good afternoon, mayor council. We have four items to talk about today. I think it'll move fairly quickly. We can either take one at a time and you can act on each and turn or we can take all four and act on them all together. It's certainly up to you. the quickest way. The rule of the council. Okay great. Elizabeth's got a meeting at two and Rodney's got one at two thirty. And Johnny. And Johnny. Okay so no pressure. We'll start with item A. We have some modifications to the policy that was adopted for fiscal year 2015 by the tears board. These are simple modifications. There are two, they're outlined in your background packet. In that background packet we included a summary in the report of what we're looking to change as well as a red line version if you wanted to see the entire document from beginning to end. So there are two modifications that we are proposing to make to the fiscal year 2015 policy. These were recommended unanimously by the tiers board, so this carries their recommendation as well. One of those is to modify the funding strategy for a 10% 90% split, meaning upon execution of the agreement for each incentive recipient, they would receive 10% of the funding up front. The remaining 90% would be due to them upon completion of the project once we have gone out to verify that the project has been done in accordance with the contract. So that's one of the two changes. The second change is regarding the length of time, the current agreement and the agreement that has been in place since the beginning of the tears and sin of policy allows for one

[2:20:37] year from the date of execution of the agreement for the project to be completed. At their most recent meeting the board discussed this in greater detail and really exhibited their concerns that that might not be quite enough time for some of the larger projects. So they have made a recommendation to extend that time within the agreement and the policy for one year to two years and also make a provision that if additional time outside the two years is needed that that be handled on a case by case basis with the recipient coming to the tiers board and asking for consideration in that regard. We would then, of course, bring that to you all for final consideration and adoption. So those are the two changes that we're looking at making to the policy itself. I'll pause and see if you have any questions about those two. Any questions, Board Charlotte? For the tiers, I thought this was based on small businesses and rehabbing and update. small business do we have that would take more than two years to complete a renovation? Well that concerns me. Correct. One thing to keep in mind is that the maximums at the beginning of this policy when we first started it were around $7,500 per project which of course pales in comparison to the cost of an overall development project. The tears board has raised that maximum to $75,000 to try to really leverage some larger projects and I think that that's probably were part of their concern came from was now we're looking at things that are not as simple as painting a facade or putting in stairwells or windows it's an overall project and if it's this important for us to incentivize we want to make certain that there's enough time to feasibly complete the project along with all of the associated city reviews etc. I'm like Charlotte I would have trouble with more people let's just say more than two years starting out because if there's someone else with a significant project I don't want to keep funding and

[2:22:40] if if we can put it to use and we would agree with that our comments when this was being discussed is that if a project is not going to be able to be completed within two years then it obviously is not planned out far enough along to be submitting so we do not recommend going out any farther than two years and you know you could choose to shorten that but we think two years is the max oh yes it's just so many you know smaller businesses well I'll do the remodel work my self while I'm running the business and there again that's an unending piece of strain that concerns me. Yeah it was the discussion was mainly about a project that might be larger in scope not the kind that you're talking about and how do you do so anyway that's why they went with two-year suggestion. And you certainly have the option to do something different this is just simply the recommendation from the board. I don't have a problem with the 10 90% funding split and I don't have problem with the two years. I got a little problem with 75,000. I mean to go from 75,000 to 75,000 that's 10 times. I've got a little problem with that. Looks to me like that's defeating the purpose of our tears because we're trying to make this available to anyone and everyone and we start spending that kind of money through four projects and we're through. Well and it's still available to anyone and everyone that the board just discussed that they really felt that some of the lower-hanging fruit they had already addressed and in conjunction with the downtown development efforts that we have. They really wanted to leverage some larger projects that really will help kickstart some development within the downtown core. And so this fits in with the project plan that they've adopted and the goals that they've identified. Okay so let's say as a it's on okay whether it's a small project or a large project we're not going to consider 75,000 for a tiny project. There's really nothing that tells us that by reading this, which maybe it's in the details, perhaps.

[2:24:42] Let's say that. But is there a method by which you defend a recommendation by the tears board that shows why this project is so significant and therefore should qualify for this amount? Because that's what I'm worried about is that there seems to be no, I'm not aware of any sort of lending, or not lending, but grant policy in place that would tell me what bells you're hitting and why you should be eligible for this amount versus a smaller amount. Correct, I'll be addressing that in item C. Yes. Y'all ready to move on? More questions? Can you please ma'am? Thank you. So the next item item B is again, making the same changes we discussed to the agreement itself. This is the agreement that each property owner would sign stating the parameters within which they are able to obtain this money. So again, it would be the 1090 split in the one year to two years. Item C is referring to the funding recommendations from the tiers board. One of the discussions that we had over the course of several meetings was really trying to revamp the current policy and making sure that, again, we achieved the goal of trying to leverage some bigger projects, that we make the process more defensible, and that it is clear that these different applications are ranked and weighted on a certain basis. Previously, the policy was first come, first serve, essentially. So one of the changes that we made this year was we had one finite application window. The applications were competitively weighed against one another. There was a subcommittee that was formed from the Tears Board itself. that subcommittee included four members, Lee Fluger, Bill Dendall, Johnny Calvert, and Dominic Santos. They sat down and really combed through each and every application from beginning to end. In the applications, the applicants were required

[2:26:42] to give us the scope of their project, to show us the budget that they are proposing for the project. There were a list of 24 different items that were identified in the Downtown Development Master Plan as being essential for this area. The applicants were asked to show how those criteria applied or did not apply to their project. So that was part of the weighting process as well. The Tiers Subcommittee, they met on April 30th. We went through all of the different applications. I'll go through a summary of those in a moment so you can see what was submitted. And they made their recommendation to the Tiers Board in May on the 27th. And the Tiers Board unanimously adopted those recommendations. And then the train came through. So, to give you a snapshot of what we looked at for this submittal window, within the north, we received just under $97,000 worth of requests. In the tier south, we received just over $582,000 worth of requests. The funding that was budgeted for fiscal year 15 by the board was just under $100,000 for north and $438,000 for the south based on what was funded and a review of the applications and their recommendations, $96,000 which was all of the requests in the north were recommended for funding and the south $285,000 of the requests were recommended for funding. I'll go through those very quickly. In your background report, we tried to give you a little more information. There's a snapshot of each project along with a statement from the applicant on how they they felt their project achieved the goals of the downtown development master plan and the policy that the tears board adopted. In the north there were two projects, one at 1917 North Bryant, this would be for construction of a restaurant, and one at 1928 MLK Boulevard, this would be for sort of an office use that

[2:28:42] would do some renovations to an existing building. The numbers on the right side of the screen is what I'd ask you to focus on the most that has the number that they initially requested for funding and in red next to that is the amount that the tiers board is recommending to fund. So on both of these requests for $70,000 and $26,000 they are recommending fully funding both of those requests. In the south, again we had far more applications. The first application is for 333 Rio Concho Drive. This was to do some ancillary work to the hotel renovation that was already underway. They requested $75,000. The board and the subcommittee is recommending funding $25,000 of that. At 236 West Beauregard, the proposal there was to demolish a building and create some ancillary parking for an office building that's housed next door. What building is that, AJ? This is the the white building at the corner of Beauregard and Bryant, it is just adjacent to the battlefield building. The old apartment. The same owner. So what they explain in their application was that they are starting to attract some tenants to the battlefield buildings, but parking seems to be the hang-up. So this was their solution for that. I will say today the tiers board is not recommending approval of this one yet. They did have some concerns regarding such a key lot at a key intersection being turned into a parking lot and they wanted to see some landscaping and screening and so we're working with the applicant to have them put together a proposal that the tiers board will consider at a future meeting and if so if so recommended we would bring that back to you for adoption. The next application was at one West Concho. This would be for the angry cactus restaurant bar space. They asked for 75,000. The recommendation of the board is to fully fund that project. 135 West Toowig, this is the the

[2:30:43] Harry's Food Store, some of you may know it as that. It's also been a nonprofit at various times. It is now vacant building that they're looking to convert to office workforce. They are asking for 75,000. The board is again recommending fully funding that project. And the last is at 115 South Chadburn. This is a building that's currently you've probably seen some changes to the front of the building they've added a canopy et cetera. This is going to be a bar. They've asked for $35,000 worth of funding and the board is recommending fully funding that. So again, that takes us to the totals at the bottom of the page, $285,000 worth of funding on projects in the south, $96,000 fully funding both projects that were received in the north. The next natural question might be what didn't get funded, So this is the slide for that. There are four projects here, 333 Rio Concho actually submitted two separate applications, one regarding the hotel space, one regarding the restaurant space. The restaurant space is not recommended for funding this year. 224 West Beauregard is the Butterfield building we were just speaking about to do some updates to the facade of that building, and that one was not recommended for funding. Seven East Concho is a vacant building that was looking at potentially doing some retail space Asking for seventy five thousand dollars that one was not recommended for funding and then three oh eight south chadburn Is a vacant garage building currently they were looking at doing some sort of food truck entertainment? Combination venue and that one was also not recommended for funding last since we're to the last slide I'll cover this and we can backtrack if necessary in In going through a new and improved policy, there have been some learning curves of course and we have taken away some lessons now that we've experienced one round of this. The board and the staff agreed that perhaps it would be a good idea to have a second funding window. This year we were behind the eight ball so to speak and inheriting this and doing some modifications

[2:32:47] to the policy that took us to farther in the fiscal year than we could actually have time for a second window. However, we'd like to start with fiscal year 16 potentially with two windows. We had some extensive discussion at the board meeting just last week about the realities and the difficulties of trying to squeeze a second window in for the fiscal year and the board supported us in understanding that that wasn't feasible. What we are looking at doing however, is proposing two application windows in fiscal year 16. We had originally suggested an October through February window and in April through August window I can answer more questions about the specifics in a moment if you'd like. The board recommendation to you all however is a slight modification to those times starting window 1 in November, running through March, starting window 2 in May, running through September. We also think that this might alleviate the issue of having projects apply before they're really ready to go and that should eliminate or at least alleviate the issue of someone actually needing more than the year to two years to do their project. So with that, those are the four recommendations we have for you today. Happy to answer questions on any and all of those. I have a question. Is there anything in this process that speaks to a property owner not being able to be a part of the review committee? Because I mean, by nature of the tier's board, you're going to have potential property owners that could participate in this recommendation process. That's a good point. I think that this year we were going through a process of trying to revamp the policy. The tears board led the decision making in that effort. We have discussed with them that moving forward all decisions would need to come through the council. We want to make sure that no unilateral decisions are made at that level unless they do involve the council or unless the council's delegated that ability to them. And I know that there was some confusion about that early on in the way that the Tears Board

[2:34:51] had been managed. Is there someone on the review committee that owns a property that's being recommended for funding? I may have an address wrong. Bill's back there. He can help you. Maybe. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Thank you for having me today. My name is Bill Dental. I'm a member of the Tears Board. Chairman Flueger is attending the change of command ceremony for General Randon San Antonio. Could not be available today. But one of the projects is incidentally related to Chairman Flueger, the angry cactus restaurant. I think his portion of his family has some interest in that and he recused himself from any voting at that point in that project. So there was a conflict of interest there. So he did recuse himself in voting to approve this. That particular project. So. Thank you. I think for the purpose of the council, full disclosure is always there. Absolutely. appreciate you saying that. Let me ask a follow-up question. I know back in 2012 Costa DC brought a deal to us and one member the council was on the board of the company that received money and there was a Co-CDC member on the board that was also an investor in this company. There was a code of ethics in the Costa DC board that said no one could serve either on the council or on the board of the Costa DC and receive any type of money until they had resigned and were off of the board for six months. That was a coast of DC board of ethics, the code of ethics. And I remember back in January to 2012, when we awarded money to a company, the first thing we had to do was to change to delete that code of ethics that took out the business that they could not be on the board, be invested, and receive government money and have any part it all to live off the board six months and we deleted that portion. The next agenda item

[2:36:56] we awarded the $3.4 million to the company. When I became mayor, the very first thing we did was put that back in. We put that back in so that we could protect our citizens. We would not have a code of ethics violation and one that was on the board could not receive any money until they were off the board for six months. That is the procedure in place in Costa DC now. My question, is there a code of ethics in the tears bylaws that prevents anyone from owning property and receiving money? I technically would not be familiar with that at this point, Mayor Morrison. Is there a J? Sure. There's not at this time, however, we think that that is something that we should consider doing when we revamp this policy for next year. It should be very clearly defined who the eligible folks are. Do we have a copy of the of the The bylaws, it gives us a code of ethics for the tears grip. I don't believe that there is a separate code of ethics for the tears. I know that there is a bylaw section in our ordinance that outlines the responsibilities and duties. At a previous council meeting, I'm sorry, I can't remember who it was on the council, had asked for that to be brought back at a future meeting. And so this is one of the issues that we think we should address with the revamping of those documents. I think this is something that's very important and to recuse is good, but to recuse does not take away the code of ethics. One does not override the other. Charlotte? Well, I have to ask, since the inception of tears, how many times has policy been changed? Now, this last time we changed to December 2014, and they were changed again, and I don't like the idea of continuing to change the policy to meet everybody's needs out there. Why have a policy to begin with if that's what we're going to do. I honestly couldn't answer your question on how many times we have been managing this board for the last just a little under a year. So I know that there've probably been at least three but I couldn't swear to a number. Well I don't have anything to

[2:38:59] click to look back at policy procedures or bylaws and I'm not willing to vote on anything today. I think that there is a city wide as far as the charter that would prevent anyone from being on the board and receiving so even if there's not a by-law that specifically speaks to tears. Teresa? Yeah I have a copy of the bylaws sorry Dan brought me and this board is regulated by chapter 171 of Texas local government code which deals with conflicts of interest so it doesn't prevent somebody from being on the board and receiving money but there are safeguards there for disclosure and abstaining from those proceedings. So a member of the tears board that owns property could get board approval and get public money tax money to go to him under the bylaws yeah technically yes under the way the bylaws are written today they would not be able to vote for themselves to have money but they could be on the board and receive money. I think we need some bylaw changes before we go any further with this. And as you I mean, as we're discussing, any of those can be added. The ones that are being brought to you today are suggestions. This is another one which can be simply added. We could bring it back. So it doesn't necessarily preclude you from moving forward with whatever portions of this today. And if there are additional ones, we can bring those as well. But it gives us guidance on how to move forward, of course, with these potential awards of grants. You don't have to award all of them. You can choose to award some of them. We've already pulled one of them. You know, it's not ready. So there's only three in front of you as well. And I guess my second request, will the council have to approve any and ever expended tier? As we research that, we talk with legal, and yes, this, the tiers board is a recommending board like any other. So unless you give that board, like you could give any other board, the action or the ability to act for you

[2:41:01] and distribute funds, that has never happened. So because that has never happened, the expenditures have to come back to you for final approval. And I would certainly want to keep that in there. This is taxpayer money, and I think it ought to be elected people that make these decisions to spend this money. I would certainly want the council to have to prove any and every expenditure. Mayor, I have a question. Yes, sir. Bill, or A.J., the restaurant in question at 19, one west gone showing. No, no, no, on North Bryant. Okay. 1917 North Bryant. What restaurant is that? It's a donut shop. It's not existing. It does not exist. There would be new construction. Oh, it does not exist, okay. I was trying to place it. I couldn't place it. So, and then secondly, some of these applications that were denied in the summary, is that what says why they were denied or why were they denied? The subcommittee and Mr. Dendall can probably speak. Sure, some of the projects were somewhat vague their final solution to what they were going to do with their project. So until they came out with a greater specificity on what they were going to do, we wanted to make sure that we held that back. I was really taken aback when I took a tour of the old townhouse, whatever you want to call it now, and the idea of what this gentleman wanted to do, I didn't even know he had applied, but when I heard he had applied it was denied, it just shocked me really, because they were boiling to spend eight or ten million dollars into the building and and us denying him and merely 75,000 dollars for him to you know at least get going with the idea it really I think I left a bad taste in everybody's mouth so I really don't know all the details and Johnny I can't speak for what the committee reviewed but I will say this when it comes to projects I think it's important from a staff perspective that we evaluate whether those projects are ready we just discussed whether a two-year time frame was too long. If a project doesn't come with enough planning in place

[2:43:02] that's already done, where it says here's exactly what we're going to do, here's our funny, here's where we're going to hit the ground run in, we really need to consider whether, not whether it's a good project or not, this one, for instance, is a potentially really good project. But is it at the stage where the tears board should actually commit the dollars to it, or does it need some more planning to come forward and then resubmit? So that's why we're trying to have these multiple windows as well. If a project's not ready, it doesn't exclude them, they can come back once. And now, like what some of these folks are saying, that I find it hard to swallow, and it does leave a bad taste when somebody by merely recusing themselves. I mean, it just, it may be okay by the way the bylaws are written, but it just doesn't look or sound right, you know? And you all give us direction on that as we go forward, we can bring an amendment back in that regard as well. I'm not comfortable with this. I'm not comfortable voting on this. Councilwoman Farmer to address your question on revisions of the bylaws. Our revisions of the policy, most of those came at the suggestion of the previous administration from Costa DC, to revise our policy to influx more interest in the tiers policy and to expand the project's capabilities of the board. So that's where most of that came from. So we're just trying to move that forward at this point. Well, I'm just want to go on record here. I'm uncomfortable, period, talking about denying people credit or in open public session here and the reasons for, because that's a very, very slippery slope I think we're on, that we don't need to be discussing publicly. Right, whether we're talking about tears or coast of the season. Anything. Shouldn't there be the same due diligence done, And it takes it out of the public realm, whether it be subcommittee of the tiers or the tiers or us. But someone's staff, start with that. Denying or approving is not a public discussion.

[2:45:05] Where that part is. We have to approve that. We do that. I'm talking about the due diligence that may be done. The recommendation. Certainly should be done in private. And you know, Bill, this is absolutely no criticism. tears board or any or any individual because the tears is fairly new in the history of our city. And when the tears doesn't generate a lot of money, they're these are these are not problems. So we're all growing up together. But I think I think maybe a little bit stronger policy is is necessary before we vote on any funding recommendations today or I'm not comfortable voting on this until we've got to we've two we've got some bylaws. I'm okay with those issues, but not the particular project funding today. How do y'all feel down here? I'm with you guys. I'm comfortable at this point, but my question is something like even we all know what 333 real country is and the millions of dollars they put into it, but for them to even get partial funding, there are 25,000 other 75 of the requested. It doesn't make sense to me and maybe just me alone but I've seen the hard work they put into that building and it just makes an angel a much better place especially the downtown area. That's really not our decision. Okay, I understand it is to approve or deny what is brought to us it's there we they're they're the ones they are the ones that make make what are we gonna table this whole thing then do we take a listen for a motion do you want to move forward on any portions of it. I think AJ has put it in various categories, which some were the modifying the tears board and Senate by there's there's different sections of it. So I don't know if you feel comfortable some areas then go ahead and do those so we can then move forward from there. I personally would like for the whole thing to be brought back and I'd like to have some concrete things to work on so that we know exactly what we're doing and what we're approving. Okay, so you may need to clarify us for us

[2:47:06] exactly what those are. And I'm assuming in for regard to the funding itself. I want a code of ethics. I want to know who is eligible and who is not eligible. And I think that the Cosa DC Board, the Cosa DC Board, I think has a wonderful pattern there that could be followed. We'll do it after that. And that's first. I'm not really happy with the $75,000. I would like to have some discussion on that. I want the city council to have complete decision making as to whether anything is approved or denied. Those are my three primary concerns. I think that third concern is addressed at this point, Mayor Morse. If there's not any bylaws, then it's not addressed. Well, I believe that's a statutory requirement under the provisions of the set of terms. Anytime I'm being asked to vote on a change of something, I'd like to see what we changed from the set of bylaws and the time it was changed before that you know what is dominoing all of these changes. I just need more information and I'm not been able to click. We'll get to that. We'll get to the red-lined version that way we can tell what it goes to and what the new wording is. That works. But I don't have it today. Now my question on this is on the ethics thing and I'm for the ethics thing. I don't think that we should do that and they shouldn't just recuse himself. But I also am for playing by the rules and they've already done a recommendation for that project the way the rules are in place at this time. So I think that and I don't have a problem holding off on the vote but on the vote I think we either say yay or nay on that vote before you do the ethics thing and kind of roll them back into it if you're talking about rolling that project back into it. I don't think we're bound to do that. We're not we're talking about not I'm not approving any of them. Right, just table it until. Can we get the information that we need? But what I'm saying is, if you're gonna table it

[2:49:06] and then you're gonna change these rules and that they've already given us the recommendation, you're changing the rules on what they did the recommendation on that one project. We're talking about one project here, I think, primarily. I don't think that's- I think there will be others then. No, there will be, I can see that this could be a problem because everybody that's on that tears board has property down there or interests down there. And that's part of the reason that we serve on that board is because we own property in that area. That's in that area. You wanted to be improved. That's exactly right. I personally have not ever requested any tears funds because I felt it a personal conflict of interest. So. But I don't think there's any reason why we don't step back, get in place, and then go forward, and everybody be working by the same rules. You will have to take, at some point in time, you will need to give us guidance on the recommendation that came on these projects. Now, you can choose to deny those and we rerun the round, you know, or whatever that is, but we will need some action sooner or later on these. And I think that's going to mean, and I think I heard that if on some of these, we have to talk about, I mean, things that we know about that we've heard about in behind closed doors and executive, I've got concerns on some others too. I mean, I'm not gonna spill it out right now, but if there's something we need to talk about each item before we approve them, I think we need to do that. Well, I will entertain a motion, and if I can get a second, then we will vote on any portion of this that y'all wanna vote on. But I can tell you right now, I'm gonna vote against every bit of it until I get enough information to make a logical, in a wise choice, and I don't have it to do it. Okay, but the recommended, I think we need to kind of give them some staff, some direction on the ones that are out there, I mean. Staff and the board. Yeah, you know. Please. If we're definitely, if we're not in favor of the 75,

[2:51:08] then I think there's no reason for it to come back to us at 75 if we're not in favor, there's no reason for it to come back if we're not in favor of over two years. We can give them that direction now. So we're not listening to the same first part of this again. I've given my direction what I feel running. I don't want to vote against that 75 unless I know his full deal on on that Property because he's not a full owner of that property. That's correct. He doesn't hold the restaurant Any deal any deal y'all are all upset about this one deal I'm talking about the the policies Yeah. Correct. And if you're not comfortable with that large $1 amount, as Marty said, we can revamp it. We can change it. You know. We can look at criteria based on if we go with $75,000 to make sure we set up certain criteria that has to be made prior to the certain dollar value being awarded or recommended for award. So we can go back and take a look at this as far as the policy and how we can establish that. The sake of discussion and the limited time we have, I'd like to make a motion that we Approve the distribution is The distribution of monies and deadline that has to do with max the 75,000 max Where's that the one I want to it's k1. I'm thinking k approve k1 k2 and k4 Which the fourth is the application window. Yeah, that's the time the twice a year With what the last one is the having to do with the application window the windows two times a year Yeah, and I and I will let's take them one at a time. Well, I'm good with her. That's her motion. One two and four second. I'll second that motion. One two and four. That's so you're doing one two and four. That's simple. And I'm. Yeah, yeah, and okay. That's not giving any money to anybody. That's just right. But it is going with the 75,000 and it is going with the 1090 and it is going with the two years. Yes. And it is going with the new application window.

[2:53:28] Yes. Yes. Okay. I don't remember what the modification in Cinever Green. We're going to bring back some other changes as you suggested outside of this regarding the ethics and so forth. Good. Okay. You made the motion, did you say? I seconded. Okay. I think that's good. That's good. That's a good compromise. But I won't, I won't more before we go any further. Before we spend any money. There you go. We have to be able to justify this to the taxpayers and I'm going to be able to justify it. Motion has been made and stated. Further council's discussion? Have public discussion on this? Thank you, mayor and council. We serve it at your discretion. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Bill. Motion has been made to we accept. One, two, three. One, two, and four. And four. And I suppose that means that we will just table three and tell another time to more information. We'll visit with you all about bringing that forward in some fashion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. nay put a five two on that one yes I'm I'm nay as well I don't I don't think I had enough information to make a decision on it so I will go name okay let's move on now to number f which is a second public hearing for public comments for and against annexation into the city of certain properties located south of loop 306 in east of knickerbock road and described as approximately 5.850 acres out of land out of the Casper Burberry Survey 177, abstract number 52, and the Henrich Zurbak Survey 178, abstract number 4210, city of St. Angelo. Tom Green County, Texas, and being out of certain 5.4.872 track, described and recorded in number 20150372, the scary URL. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Rebecca Guerra, planning manager. The next item for you is the Bentwood Annexation. It's a little over five acres. It's located south of Loop 306 and eastern

[2:55:31] knickerbocker. It is in the ETJ but if annexed it will be in single member district number one. Future land use of this site is neighborhood. There is no zoning as it is in the ETJ but if annexed we'll receive a ranch in a state zoning designation. Here's the approved annexation plan. It is shown as intermediate on that plan, here's a copy of the major thoroughfare plan and a copy of the utilities map. Two notifications were sent out and zero responses were received as a result of those notifications. There is no action request today. Today is the second public comment hearing as required by the Texas local government code and the first reading of the ordinance will be on August the 4th and just to remind you that ordinance and the staff report associated with it will have the service plan and the CIP portion that will address all of those questions. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. This simply is the second public hearing comment area. If anyone has any public comment about this annexation, now is the time to step forward and make your wishes known. Is this the area where they've already built a commercial building right there to know it's not yet okay thank you I couldn't recognize it if there is no public comment on this then we have satisfied law and we can move on am I right yes sir we will satisfy and move on number g discussion and authorization for proposed request for qualifications is this one you want to pull rek yes you want to pull it okay let's do it again okay we will be pulling then item number g Number eight, first public hearing and consideration introducing an ordinance rezoning property generally located north of Tewig Avenue and this is a typo and a correction to the agenda. It is west of Main Street, south of

[2:57:35] 2nd Street and another typo east of Chadburn Street. From a combination of general commercial CG in Central Business District CBD to a plan development PD District, PD-1504 Shine and Downtown Medical Campus, Ms. Cara. Yes, sir. And it is correct on the screen. It is about 45 acres. It is in single member district number three in the downtown neighborhood. So just before we move on to the next slide, you have an outline of what the PD looks like. So the purpose of this plan development, there is already a PD for this Shannon medical complex. They have decided to integrate some properties on here, exclude some properties that they don't own yet, and this is pretty much a clean-up of what it existed before, and in this case, we're actually introducing for the first time a concept plan, which actually shows the parameters of this site and all the buildings that are on this site. So the future land use of this property, all 45 acres, is downtown. The zoning was mixed, and so this is a cleanup of the PD and the properties that were brought in and so currently it's CBD, CG, and PD and the proposed is to be all PD. Here is the actual concept plan that's associated with the Shannon medical complex so now for once you can see what it all looks like in one fell swoop. So the action requested today, I'm sorry, the recommendation is to approve a rezone to the planning, to the plan development zoning district subject to two conditions of approval. These are the rationale that we utilize to make this decision, it's also in your staff report. Basically, it's consistent with the future land use and it's a clean up. 134 notices were sent out. It's the most we've ever sent out in one project except for an annexation. And we receive five responses in favor of this request. They're all located in your staff reports. So the actual request is to rezone from CG, CBD, and PD2PD, subject to two conditions of approval, as shown before you, and in your staff reports. This concludes staff's presentation. We're available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

[2:59:35] This is in your area, you want to take it? Absolutely, I moved to approve this item as presented. I've been waiting for this for a long time. This is good, it's clean up, it's just housekeeping. Do I have a motion to approve it presented? Do I have council discussion on this item? Do I have public comment on this item? Oh, in favor of accepting this as presented, please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay, put a 7-0 on that one, please. and I just wanted to I got a notice that though some of the last discussion with the tears board we didn't catch everything on the audios just make sure that everybody's speaking into the mic wherever wherever we're talking I bet they don't have any trouble here in me I don't think so they usually turn everybody else's mic up my down I think this next one goes in line with this doesn't it I first public hearing consideration introducing an ordinance authorizing abandonment a public wide away in the miles addition blocks 21 21 a half of San Angelo, Texas including and approximately 20 by 433.19 alley running east to west perpendicular to north main and authorizing the conveyance to abutting property owners. Yes, sir. So this is an alley that's being abandoned within the Shannon medical complex. It is a running behind what will be their future MOB or medical office building. So it's about 20 feet wide, 433 feet long. It's located west of North Main Street between Harrison College Avenue. Again, it's in single-member District 3 in the downtown neighborhood. The zoning is today PD, CG, and CGCH, and hopefully it will all be PD. We're recommending approval as has the City's Public Works Department, as has the utility companies that are actually that have easements located within that alleyway. So everyone has recommended approval It's been distributed to every single utility company.

[3:01:35] And everyone has been recommending approval of it. So the action requested today is to approve a 20-foot wide right-of-way abandonment, subject to the following five conditions in front of you and in your staff reports. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. My recommendation, Mr. Silvis. I also again move to approve this item as presented. Do I have a motion and a second to approve as presented? Council discussion, public comment, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. I suppose Elizabeth has gone, so let's put a 6-0 on that one. The next one is Jay. Mr. Salas, public hearing and consideration of the approval of the 2015 annual action plan for use of CDBG and home grant funds authorizing the city manager to execute the required applications, certifications, annual funding agreements for $710,246 of CDBG and $254,439 of home grant funds and related documents. Mr. Silas. Good afternoon. The annual action plan is really our petition for CDBG home grant funds for the year. It's also an opportunity for the citizens to get up and make comment if they wish. It is a HUD requirement that to do August the 15th. It certifies that we're adhering to all the federal regulations such as fair housing, anti-discrimination, maintaining a drug for environment, just to name a few. It also addresses key items such as housing for the homeless and special needs, barriers to affordable housing, and based payment abatement. But most importantly, it documents what council went over and deliberated at the last meeting. put it in the in the annual action plan we advertised it at center times we have copies available to citizens and this point we're asking council to approve it

[3:03:35] this what we went over last time yes sir it is to approve is presented second do have a motion to approve as presented do we have a second and you sign off on all this we've met all of the things they told us to do we did sir okay you're happy with it I am okay do you have a motion to approve would have a second Council discussion do I have public comment on this item if not I will call for a vote of accepting as presenting item number J on the at 215 annual action plan all in favor please say aye opposed nay drop a 6-0 that one buddy say yeah one more of us goes we're through the this would be ill its first public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance amending a pending fee schedule revising planning and related fees. Ms. Chigwinton. Good afternoon Council. We had discussion of course last month and the month before related to the fee review and what's before you today is implementation of the planning fees as directed by the Council and so the ordinance of course putting it into place is before you today as well as listing each of the items recommended for implementation. So this is the same presentation as last time when we had discussion unless there's anything specific I want to. These just have all the recommended changes by the city council the dollar amount. That's great. Very good. Second. Do I have a motion to approve? It has been seconded as presented. Does anybody have any questions need to ask on this? I mean we've deal with it before. If anyone has any questions, here's your time. Public discussion, have any questions from the public? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed nay. Well, let's put a 5-0 on that one, Mr. Bryan. One more and we

[3:05:38] threw. Number M is discussion regarding the fiscal year 215-216 budget preparation, Ms. Tigwin. We are continuing budget preparation, of course. I won't spend a whole lot of time on the calendar. You know, we've got that in your background and we've talked at length about our pending state deadlines and the items we've already completed on the calendar. So I really wanted to focus on what I will just assure you that we are acting well in advance of meeting our state requirements. And so we're on track for all of that. I did want to spend some time on the council priorities, how those are being impacted by this year's budget cycle and what's going on with each of those. So I was going to hit those top five priorities quickly and kind of remind you of the progress we've made, but then also identify the additional need of what's going on there. So, excuse me, at this same time last year, we went through this similar process, identifying the top five goals. For this first one related to water infrastructure and water supply, we didn't have much to report at this time last year, but of course, our folks have been working diligently. We've made progress related to the wastewater reuse studies, allocated dollars of $1.3 million, red arroyo study related to that detention pond, $150,000 allocated for that study, infrastructure investment. That's our annual CIP money for water infrastructure. We're investing about $5.8 million annually into that function, and then of course, continued partnership with the West Texas Water Partnership. There's of course additional need, a lot left to do, related to water supply in basically doing the construction projects necessary, if warranted, related to the wastewater reuse supply project, the red or royal construction for supply project, and of course increased infrastructure investment. And I think a lot of this is gonna come out as we continue the water rate study and bring that to the council later. And so we don't anticipate that there will be any action taken on this item in this year's operating budget cycle,

[3:07:40] but we do have a lot of exciting things in the pipeline that I think will get us at an appropriate maintenance cycle and bring additional water supplies online. So not much to discuss today related to this council priority. The next council priority, of course, is related to streets maintenance and reconstruction. Last year, of course, when we adopted the fiscal year 15 budget, we grew, you know, in fiscal year 12, we had a maintenance budget of about $600,000. We've grown to fiscal year 15, the current year of about $4 million. So that put us at an eight-year maintenance cycle. We've been in conversations with relevant staff and the Budget Committee and city manager that it's time to keep our eye on the reconstruction component at this time. And so of course we're pending the street survey. We do expect that there will be recommendations that come out of that and that our early estimates were that there were $130 million worth of streets that were at, had a met their useful life or exceeded their useful life. And so we do anticipate that that street survey will bear greater fruit and give us direction on how to proceed on that. We'll continue to work on this outside the budget cycle. We don't anticipate that you need to take action on this item as we adopt this year's original budget. We do anticipate that there will be action on it soon though. Good, I have a question. Absolutely. You said we've increased it to eight million. Four million, four million. And that put us on an eight year cycle. Yes, sir. we are on eight years. And I think our goal is to get to a seven to eight-year cycle. And that's again for maintenance. I know that people sometimes think what four million is going to cover all the streets is not. It's really full of streets that need the crack ceiling, seal code, and so forth. And that's what this is covers. And the other that we'll discuss is how to finance and cover the reconstruction part of it. So this is just prevented. Yes, sir, that is correct. OK. The third council priority, of course, relates to salaries making an adjustment to market. This, of course, is kind of a different priority than the other ones before you. And that's basically because it's a continued investment.

[3:09:40] It's a moving target. It's not like I could say to you today, you can invest this much money, and then we would be done with this agenda item. It would be it's a continued discussion. And so, of course, we've had substantial progress related to adjustments to civilian salaries. The fire pay plan is complete, and we implemented a pay plan that is going to live with us for decades, and it's going to work. We've, of course, made substantial progress with the existing police meeting confer agreement, what we need to consider for the fiscal year 16 operating budget in this cycle, our pay adjustments related to the civilians and the fire civil service. So we do anticipate that there will be discussion on that during this budget cycle. The fourth item of the council priorities is related to improved development process. And so of course we've made, again this time last year we didn't have much to report, but we have made some progress towards this item as well. We have $360,000 expended for a software install that we're wrapping up soon, I believe. And that is, of course, a one-time cause that will also have an annual software maintenance of $40,000 just to maintain that software each year. And that is included in the budget that's before you. There were also personnel added related to improving the development process to personnel specifically. And so that's about $130,000 annual investment that we'll have again and again. And then, of course, the change in the workstations, I don't want to say remodel, but there's been a change in the customer flow to make it a better experience and a better workplace. And then so as far as improvements to the development process, that's a kind of progress we've made so far. Of course, we talked earlier today with Russell Smith, I'm sorry, Russell Pell, about the policies and the guidelines and things like that that we're going to continue working on, those are things that don't necessarily cost money, but we do have some outlying issues that we're identifying that way. Additional needs related to improving the development process, we just skipped item G, we had to anticipate that that will come back at a future council meeting

[3:11:42] and have some price tag associated with that. And then of course training and other funding requests for the fiscal year 16 were identified at just about $117,000 additional funds needed in their operating budget to maintain appropriate levels. So we do recommend that there probably will be some action necessary. This budget cycle related to improving the development process. The next item, the last item that the council priorities and goals is related, of course, to the police station. That, of course, there's been progress on it. In 2011, we did the needs assessment for about $130,000. That's been a document that's been guiding in the process of acquiring the possible site and the things that are going on with that. So we do anticipate that there will be some rehabilitation or construction at some point, and then the voter approval for the funding related to that. This is another item that we expect will proceed outside of this budget process. It probably does not need allocation of funds through the operating budget. It's gonna be bigger and outside of that, though it will not hold up the project. It will not be recommended for adoption in your original budget. So, there are other items that staff and the budget review have identified as items that need to be considered for funding this year. Of course, we are fighting the ever-increasing demands related to health insurance, that there is additional requirements related to the Affordable Care Act and our claims experience is growing, and so we do anticipate that there will be a recommendation for an increased employer contribution for the health insurance. Similarly in the workers compensation fund, we don't look at this often, but it is something we try to look at about every five years to make sure that the funding going into our self-insured fund is satisfying that liability, and we're at a situation where we do need to address funding that liability. So we do anticipate that this budget year we would recommend an increase in the contribution related to workers comp. The next item there is related to pay-as-you-go capital. If you recall, we used to set aside about $1,750,000

[3:13:45] each year of general fund dollars into capital, $250,000 of that is invested for ambulance equipment replacement or ambulance replacement. The remainder of that is used for pay-as-you-go capital projects. And what I mean by that is we're not issuing debt. We regularly identify city projects that are too big to absorb in the operating budget, but too small really to issue debt for. And some examples of that would be 19th Street sidewalks, Fairmount cemetery columnbarium. These are items that we funded in the past. In the fiscal year 15 budget, this time last year we cut pay-as-you-go capital almost completely in order to invest those funds in street maintenance. That was a bigger priority. We absolutely recommended that that occur. However, that does hamstring us for if there's a situation where we have big projects in the general fund for the council's discretion to be able to use that fund. So we do anticipate that we would recommend that there would be an increase to our pay-as-you-go capital to replenish that fund. And of course that has a larger history of we used to set aside 10 cents of the property tax to debt service. We actually reduced that to about 8 cents but kept that 2 cents for pay-as-you-go capital. And so we're hurting by not having that in place and so we would recommend that something change regarding that. The next item listed there is related to vehicle maintenance. There's a proposed overhaul of that function and how we provide that service and there is a cost impact related to that. So we anticipate that there would be a recommendation to increase that funding and then the last item before you that's kind of a catch-all for services that are lacking resources. We have existing services that do not have sufficient budget to meet what the council has mandated that they provide and that that runs the gamut and it's probably part of a bigger discussion. And so again these are items that we recommend some action in the cycle and this is a slide that may be familiar to some of you as we discuss the major funds last meeting we identified that the general fund was budgeted right now today at a surplus of revenue over expenditures of $480,000. Of course, that's not sufficient resources to match with all the needs that we

[3:15:50] just identified, that things related to development services, to pay raises, all of that. And so we do anticipate that property tax may yield sufficient resources to address some of these things and we are waiting very patiently for those the report to come out and we should receive it Saturday July 25th. There is we are still sharpening our pencil on each of these items and again we're gonna have to match our resources against our expenses but there may be an opportunity to do you want to Mayor Council members also my Friday as far as the update that I sent to y'all I I did recommend that we do a budget workshop and I would definitely want to make sure we did a budget workshop after the certified values came in which is on the 25th. My recommendation is for next Tuesday on the 28th if we could meet in the morning and go over some of the issues that she just discussed a while ago so we can kind of go into the morning depth and have a clear understanding of exactly how much money we have for as far as marginal revenues and how we're going to prioritize those. So again, my recommendation is that we do have a budget workshop schedule for next Tuesday. I know Liz had mentioned to me that she would be available that day, but in the morning she was asking maybe eight o'clock in the morning from eight to ten or ten thirty. I'm not sure what your schedules look like, but if you could do that then that would be wonderful. We could actually really break everything down and make sure that the allocations are made. It's 28th at eight o'clock. Eight o'clock in the morning? That'd be okay. It's good for me. Where? It'll be here. from that this room is available. You can be out of town. I can be here. You can be here? OK. So we do have one individual. You can be out of town this time. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. You'll be OK with it. See, that's fine. That's what it's called. May I vote? Your proxy? Absolutely vote. Yeah, sure. That's kind of the eight o'clock. Well, let's say tentatively then. Next Tuesday, 8 o'clock in the morning.

[3:17:51] Again, it should take a couple of hours. And we'll go through all of these items and kind of make sure that we do allocate it. The city council has an opportunity to allocate those we're prioritized. Thank you, David. She's biscuit. Okay. And we will provide breakfast as well. So thank you. So let's say next, again, next Tuesday, eight o'clock in the morning. And that's all I have for y'all. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Thank you. Any questions? Before she sets down. Thank you very much, ma'am. Thank you. Which moves us to number seven, follow up in the administrative issues, consideration of and possible action on matters discussed in executive closed session if needed, and there is There's nothing to report. There were no decisions made simply for information. And number B is announcements and consideration to future agenda items. I guess we'll start with you, Ms. Lucy. If you have anything you want to put up. No, sir. Ms. Farmer. Yes. One item that I had already discussed with the city manager and the city attorney with reference to city ordinance clean up or look up. And they have that. I got it. That's it? Marty? None at this time. We're just going to get my zoning ordinance, my, my, okay, yeah, yeah, that's great. Thank you. Mr. Fleming. None at this time. And I would like to do one, I won't mind in there as far as this, this $25 fee on the water. I want that on the next day. Yeah, let's get you for next week's. Okay. I have to turn. Second. Second. put a X on this one, a period on this one Brian it's over.

Transcribed 2026-07-27 with faster-whisper (base.en) · source: youtube.com/watch?v=xuLNUr8Dqds