City Council - Regular Meeting

we're going to go ahead and call this meeting in order. First thing we're going to do is start with our prayers and pledges. At this point, we'd like to bring up Chaplain Gary and Marcella Jenkins.

Good morning, everybody. Mr. Mayor, city council members, and all of the guests that are here in the chamber, will you join with me in a word of prayer? Father in heaven, in Jesus' name, we bow before you, the author and the finisher of our faith, to say thank you for this day. We thank you that we live in a country where we have the freedom to worship you, to seek your face and your counsel. And so therefore, we ask you, Lord, to endow the members of the city council and all of those that are gathered here with wisdom and the ability to execute the offices that they hold in a way that will glorify you and be edifying to all of the people of San Angelo. We thank you, dear Lord, for, Lord, opportunity to recognize the National POW MIA Remembrance Day. We thank you for the Hispanic Heritage Month, and we thank you for the Fire Prevention Week. And thank you for all of our firefighters and first responders. and all of those that are laboring to ensure that our community remains safe. We pray, Father, that each and every one here will be blessed and that the business of the city will be conducted in such a way that each one of us benefit. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. one and indivisible

We have several or three proclamations to read this morning. If I could get everyone that was involved in the National POWMIA Remembrance Day to come up. Throughout American history, generations of patriots have bravely served in our military and sacrificed their lives to protect our country and preserve democracy around the world. More than 125,000 American women and men have been held captive by hostile powers during their military service, and more than 83,000 Americans remain missing from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. Thousands of American prisoners of war have been subject to harsh and inhumane treatment by their captors, resulting in death while families suffer with the pain and uncertainty concerning their loved one's fate. The third Friday of each September is set aside to honor those who remain missing and those who suffered starvation, isolation, fear, and uncertainty during their captivity. The city of San Angelo is proud to join the state of Texas and the entire nation in honoring those brave American veterans. It is because of their dedication and sacrifice of these women and men that people in our own country and lands and far away and far away lands can live in freedom. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, mayor of the city of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the city council, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 18, 2026, as National POW-MIA Remembrance Day in San Angelo, Texas. Further, be it known that the citizens of San Angelo will remember with eternal respect those San Angelo citizens who were held captive by the enemy or were or remain missing in action, including Chief Warrant Officer Howard Drake, Staff Sergeant Stratton Beasley, and Petty Officer Milton Brown from World War II. Master Sergeant Johnny Johnson from the Korean War, Colonel Louis Jones from Vietnam, and Major Troy Gilbert from Iraq Operation Enduring Freedom. Thank you, gentlemen. Somebody's going to speak some words?

There's not a lot of words that can describe 100,000 plus missing service members and killed in action. So today, I think we're going to mention a couple of names, Mr. Martin and Mr. Irwin, who were from Tom Green County, who lost their lives on the Arizona on the day of Pearl Harbor's attack.

Now, if there's anyone here for Hispanic Heritage Month, would you please come forward? Got the crew. Good to see y'all. Just for you, ma'am. Hispanic Heritage Month, observed annually from September 15th through October 15th, provides an opportunity to recognize, honor, and celebrate the rich history, culture, traditions, and contributions of Hispanic and Latino Americans. Hispanic families and individuals have been an integral part of the history and development of San Angelo and the Contra Valley for generations. contributing to the growth and vitality of our community through agriculture, ranching, business, education, military service, government, the arts, faith and civic leadership. Generations of Hispanic San Angelones have worked to build stronger families, neighborhoods, schools, businesses and community organizations, leaving a legacy for future generations. The Hispanic heritage of San Angelo is woven into the fabric of our community and can be seen throughout our neighborhoods, businesses, schools, churches, cultural institutions, celebrations, music, food, art, and family traditions. San Angelo's Hispanic heritage is not only part of our past but continues to shape the present and future of our city, providing opportunities for cultural understanding, education, community connection, and civic participation. Hispanic Heritage Month allows the entire San Angelo community to come together to celebrate our shared history, recognize the accomplishments and contributions of Hispanic residents, and encourage the preservation of cultural traditions for generations to come. The San Angelo Hispanic Heritage Board is committed to preserving, promoting, and celebrating Hispanic history and culture in San Angelo and the Concho Valley while providing educational and cultural opportunities that bring our community together. The City of San Angelo recognizes that our community is stronger because of the diversity of its people and the many cultures, traditions, and experiences that contribute to the character and identity of our city. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, Mayor of the City of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim September 15th through October 15th, 2026, as Hispanic Heritage Month. and I encourage all residents to join the San Angelo Hispanic Heritage Board and the Hispanic community in celebrating our shared history, honoring the contributions of Hispanic San Angeloans, and embracing the culture and traditions that help make San Angelo a vibrant and welcoming community. Are you demanding words?

Thank you, Mayor, Council. Past President Manny Campos with the San Angelo Hispanic Heritage. We're honored for this proclamation. We're so proud of the part of the story of this wonderful community. It isn't just about Hispanics. It's about the entire community together. We help tell this beautiful story of San Angelo, the state, and this country. So if you're free at 530, join us at the Meyer Museum. We have a special service and event at the Meyer Museum honoring the kickoff of this wonderful commemoration. Thank you all.

Anybody here with Fire Prevention Week? Anybody here? Brent, I saw you try to hide. Now, if I mispronounce lithium ion, I only get 37 chances in this proclamation to read it, okay? The City of San Angelo is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our community. Fire remains a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and the presence of lithium ion batteries in many household devices introduce unique fire risk. Most of the electronics used in homes daily, including smartphones, tablets, laptops, power tools, e-bikes, e-scooters, and toys, are powered by lithium ion batteries, which, if misused, damaged, or improperly charged, can overheat, start a fire, or explode. The National Fire Protection Association reports an increase in battery-related fires, underscoring the need for public education on the safe use of lithium ion batteries. The way that lithium ion batteries are charged can make a difference in helping prevent home fires. Residents should follow five key precautions when charging devices containing lithium ion batteries. Always use the cord and charger that came with the device or one approved by the manufacturer. Always charge devices on a hard, flat surface. Watch for warning signs like devices that are very hot or begin to swell. Unplug devices that are fully charged and charge larger devices such as e-bikes and tools outside and away from exits. Lithium-ion batteries store a large amount of energy in a very small space, and unsafe charging practices can result in fire or explosion. The City of San Angelo's first responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of fires through prevention, safety, education, and community outreach. The 2026 Fire Prevention Week theme, Charge Into Fire Safely and Safe Charging, is a superpower. It serves to remind us that safe charging can help reduce the risk of fires in homes and communities. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, the Mayor of the City of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of City Council, will hereby proclaim October 4th through October 10th, 2026, as Fire Prevention Week, and encourage all citizens to practice safe handling, proper charging, and disposal of lithium-ion batteries. Somebody's going to have some words here.

Good morning. I am Eric Martinson, Deputy Fire Marshal. Fire Prevention Week is a partnership between parents, kids, and schools, okay? And we cannot have that partnership if we don't communicate and work together. So we have heard some stuff about being a community member and community this morning. I'm inviting you to be part of our community in fire prevention, okay? I want to hear from you guys. We have a lot of responsibility in our office to prevent fires and reduce the risk of fires. Six people died in the past five years due to fire, okay? Smoke, inhalation. I don't want that to happen. And I know all of you have somebody that you can think of that you'd be pretty hurt if they didn't show up this morning, right? Part of the community, be part of the community and have some, think about some responsibility, what responsibility that brings, right? Let's have a conversation so we can all work together. That's all.

Now we'll move on to agenda item four, public comment. Members of the public may raise issues or concerns not listed on the regular agenda. During this time, to participate, please sign in with the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called in the order they signed in. When speaking, citizens must speak from the podium, address all comments to the dais, begin by stating your name and address or single member district number, and limit your remarks to three minutes or less. All right, for a start, Heather, how many do we have signed up for public comment this morning?

For general public comment, about six.

All right. Let's go ahead and start.

Eugene Hall.

Eugene Hall. Heather, can we move to number two?

Iman Janfada. Nelda Nallen.

Nelda. I saw Nelda.

Good morning. My name is Nelden Allen. I reside in District 1. Tommy Hebert is my city council representative, and I'm here this morning to give him a great big thank you. Thank you, thank you. You have represented us well. I know this is your last term, and I'm very appreciative. I'm most appreciative when I misunderstand what he told me the first time, that he's willing to take the time to call me and go over it and explain it again. I'm also very grateful to the other city council members, including Mayor Thompson, who were kind enough to call me when I expressed my concerns about a particular issue. One thing that I am appreciative of is the town halls. I'm appreciative of all of the city department heads. They were so knowledgeable, and they were so polite, and they didn't look at me and go, How could you not know that? Instead, they they explained, I would like to make the suggestion, however, that the town hall meetings be structured a little bit differently. They were not long enough for me. Our new city manager said, Well, I see you're here again because I came to another one. That's because I didn't get around to everybody that I needed to. And nor did I have an opportunity, I felt like, after I talked to some people, to go back after I talked to someone else. So I would request that you look at the length. And I would request that also you allow for people to turn in questions that maybe an employee could look at and see if they coincided with other people's questions so that you could, the water department doesn't have to just talk to me. They could answer everybody's same question. and that way that we could move through them a little quicker and I don't have to keep going back and back. I was at Ms. Hessey Smith's last night. Why? Because there was one other thing that I wanted to know, but they have all been answered. Again, thank you for your time. You're very generous with that time and you're very generous with your knowledge to share to constituents.

All in favor of closing the meeting after that? Oh, my gosh.

Tony Villarreal.

We'll get it round two. Tony.

Good morning. My name is Tony Villarreal. I am here on behalf of MANO. I'm a single member of District 1. Tommy, thank you for all you do for us, Tommy. The Minority Alliance Network Organization appreciates the city's efforts to address proposed monthly fees and financial impact they may have on St. Angelo families. As this discussion continues, we believe there is significant value in maintaining direct communication COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS MANO. MANO HAS DEVELOPED A STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER AND HAS BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN TIMELY INFORMATION DURING EMERGENCIES AND OTHER ISSUES AFFECTING OUR COMMUNITY. HAVING ACCURATE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ALLOWED MANO TO INFORM ITS MEMBERS, ANSWER QUESTIONS, ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO CONTACT THEIR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MAYOR DIRECTLY. THIS WAS DEMONSTRATED DURING THE FOURTH OF JULY FLOOD EMERGENCY WHEN RESPONSE AT THE REQUEST OF THE MAYOR AND DANIEL. Our members helped communicate with residents, gathered information, identified needs, connected affected households with appropriate resources. That experience demonstrated the value of having a direct line of communication between the city and trusted community organizations during emergencies and other issues that directly affect our residents. On this issue had to depend primarily on information reported BY THE CONCHO VALLEY OBSERVER IN SAN ANGELO LIFE. WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE WORK OF LOCAL MEDIA AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, SHOULD ALSO RECEIVE TIMELY ACCURATE INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY AND PROPOSED ACTIONS MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED HOUSEHOLD FINANCES. MANO CAN SERVE as an effective communication partner by helping the city share accurate and timely information with residents and local businesses, explain proposed fees and changes, timelines, and available assistance, reach minority-owned businesses, apartment residents, retirees, and other groups that may not have routinely attended city meetings, direct residents to appropriate district representative of the mayor or the city department, Help identify questions and concerns emerging from the community. Distribute information throughout the city and establish relationships with civic, nonprofit, faith-based, and neighborhood organizations. MONO is not seeking to replace the city official communication channels. Rather, we want to strengthen them by serving as a trusted community partner. When residents understand what is being proposed, why is it necessary, and how it will affect their household, what assistance available, they are better prepared to participate in the process and make informed decisions. We respectfully ask the mayor and the city council to include modeling the future communications involving significant financial emergency, community-wide matters, a direct line of communication with the city manager, AND CITY STAFF IN APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS WOULD HELP ENSURE THE INFORMATION REACHES THE COMMUNITY PROPLY AND ACCURATELY.

THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER RACHEL ROLAND.

NEW SPEAKER RACHEL ROLAND, DISTRICT 4. Good morning, council, and thank you for your time today. First, I wanted to give credit where it's due. The district town halls were a step in the right direction. I know this because I was one of the people encouraging everybody to go. I enjoyed meeting our new city manager, and I really appreciated getting to talk one-on-one with Councilman Patrick Healy. But after that conversation, I realized Patrick wasn't really the person I needed to talk to because he seems to get it. He seems to still be rooted in the idea that this government belongs to the people. But after hyping these town halls up and encouraging people to attend, personally, I was very disappointed. People wanted to talk about data centers. They wanted to talk about Phlox and Axon cameras, amongst other things. They wanted to talk about the decisions actively shaping their city. And those conversations largely did not happen. Today, I don't want to talk about what I want. I want to talk about what I've been hearing from the people of San Angelo. They want lights at the dog park, maybe even a dog park on the north side. They want Lakeview Park to be an actual park again so kids on the north side have somewhere safe to go. They want people experiencing homelessness to have somewhere to go to so our parks don't have to become their shelters. They want affordable things to do with their families. And these aren't unreasonable expectations. The city of San Angelo's website itself says our parks are supposed to provide safe and recreational opportunities and improve residents' quality of life. They want jobs that actually support their families in town. And they want to be involved in the political decision shaping their city. But they also have to work. They have kids to pick up, bills to pay, and elderly parents to care for. They're saving their PTO for the day their kid wakes up sick. In 2026, child care can literally rival the cost of a college tuition. And city council meets at 8.30 on a Tuesday morning. One of the people I've met through all of this is a woman in her 70s who has lived in San Angelo her entire life, Miss Kathy. I've actually never met her in person. We connected because she wanted to attend a data center meeting and she wants to attend these meetings and she needs a ride. She's not able to be here every week like she wants to because physically she cannot. She cares a lot. She's paying attention. She wants a voice. She's just not sitting in one of these chairs. San Angelo may have a slight apathy problem, but we also have a serious access problem. Somewhere along the way, people also started believing that the eight people sitting up in here in front of us is in charge of this city. And unfortunately, you're not. We are. You were elected to represent us. So the town halls were a great start, but we need to make them actually matter. Talk about the controversial stuff. Continue going where people already are. Ask what the people think before the decisions are made. Give working families ways to participate that don't require burning a paid time off day. And please stop assuming silence means approval. Sometimes silence just means somebody had to go to work. The empty chairs are not consent. The people of San Angelo don't work for the city government. The city government works for them. And it's time that they're reminded of that. Thank you.

Henry Fitchett.

Thank you. Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen and members of the council, I'm here also because of the fee and one other issue. I was born and raised here in San Angelo, Texas, and I love myself. I love it. But these new developments are ruining San Angelo. Don't have the adequate enforcement or training, water supplies. It just keeps going on and on. And as the young lady and the gentleman said before me, I truly agree with what they stated. And I'm really disappointed in the council not bringing the issues to the people of San Angelo. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ritchie. That concludes public. I'd like to make one statement. Over the past weekend, I saw several people at 9-11 memorials. I thought it was totally outstanding. I went to two on Friday, and I went to one Sunday morning. I have never seen them as well as attended as I did this past weekend. I saw members of our SO, our PD, our fire department there carrying 30-pound rucksacks, making 2,700 steps. I saw people there walking San Angelo Stadium in a full, you know, fire attire. I saw PD there in a full uniform. And I just want to say, if you weren't there seeing that, it's outstanding to know that these people have not forgot and people will not forget what the people did on 9-11. So I just want to thank everyone of city staff and everybody else that volunteered and went to those functions. With that, let's go into the consent agenda. I'll start down here with Mr. Hebert. Tommy, do you have anything you'd like to pull? Joe? No, sir. Harry?

No, sir.

I'm clean.

Patrick?

C and G. C and G. Karen? No, thank you. Mary?

No, sir.

So I'll look for a motion to approve all items except C&G. Motion to approve. I have a first from Karen and a second from Harry Thomas. Is there any public comment on any items excluding C&G? With none, we'll look for a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All items except C&G pass 7-0. Now we'll go to item C, consider authorizing city manager to enter into a new recreational lease agreement with the following tenant, Diaz 2763 Red Bluff Road, approximately 0.45 acres out of the Amgar A-1649S0182. Sarah, you're on. Good morning.

What questions did you have, Mr. Keeley?

So I assume the fee was kind of based on what other people are paying for the properties that they live on and then they have access to the lake. Is that what it's based on?

Well, this one is a little unique. There is no structure there. You know, typically we have, you know, homeowners out there. This is the prior fee that was being charged. This lease is good till 2027. We did put this out for bids in 2025. We had zero bids. So this land has just been sitting there vacant. And this is what the prior tenant was paying. We just kept those fees because we're considering this kind of a rec ag lease. It's not really a residential lease. And we're just, yes, those fees are in line with all of our other tenants.

Gotcha. To me, it just seemed super low. I didn't know it was for lease. So I know it was out there. I don't know where. We've had a conversation before about other properties that we've gotten a lot more interest in now because we've done a better job of getting them out there to show that they're available.

It's unique. There's no water. There's no electricity. It's very much in its natural state. And again, this is what the previous tenant was paying. So we're just keeping it in those lines.

Okay. That's all I've got. Patrick, you want to make a motion? No, I'll let somebody else because I'm going to vote against it.

Okay, I'll look for a motion on this. I have a first from Tommy Hebert, a second from Joe Self. Any public comment on this item? All right, with no public comment, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Item passed is 6-1. Now we'll go to item G. Consider approving a resolution approving an advanced funding agreement related to a grant award from the Texas Department of Transportation under its carbon reduction program for the Sunset Drive project in the amount of 1.48 million, authorizing the city's contribution of a 20% match and direct state cost not to exceed $493,076.40 plus cost overruns and further authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Patrick?

All right, good morning.

There's a lot of press that's gone on over carbon credits the past two weeks. I mean, 60 days, the whole thing. So I'm glad Patrick pulled this one. I got a text yesterday from one of the crowds saying, hey, we may want to look at this. So I think this will all be a legal concern also if you know of any history that might prevent this and if we vetted it out legally. Patrick, you. Thank you.

Patrick. Patrick. Patrick and Patrick. Patrick and Patrick. So, yeah, my question was going to be, I mean, first, we love grants, so I know you've secured a lot the last couple years. Is that basically, is the carbon reduction program, is this supposed to, is it the credits that big businesses pay to reduce their carbon footprint, and this is gonna somehow help that, or how does that?

What a carbon reduction funding is, is it's funding from the Fed, from the federal government, facilitated through the state of Texas. So this is actually handed down to us from TxDOT, as well as through our MPOs. So you'll see a number of 1.48 million there. That is from TxDOT. There's an additional amount from MPO that's considered local money that we don't have to have this resolution for, but in total we're getting $3.6 million in contribution toward this project of carbon reduction money. All that means is whatever activities this is going toward helps reduce the overall carbon footprint or the impact on the environment of carbon reduction in the environment. So walking versus driving, bicycling versus driving, FDR versus full reconstruction or mill and overlay versus full reconstruction. There's a whole myriad of applicable activities that go into that. It's simply the only requirement of the grant is that If you take A and you compare it to B, does B reduce the amount of carbon used in order to facilitate A? That's all this is. So $3.6 million toward a project that we were doing already. It was already on our books. We didn't add anything to the project because of this money. We're simply moving some of the cost off of our plate onto TxDOT's plate with this money.

Did we have to take anything away? Because you mentioned mill and overlay versus full reconstruction.

No, sir. We did not.

So this is what we would recommend for this road. We're still able to do exactly that.

We did not change the plans one bit because of this funding. We're simply moving $1 from one pot to a different pot.

And then it mentions in the grant that we have to basically cover the state's direct cost. Is that kind of the give and take of them administering the program? Is there like, well, you've got to take that portion on?

That's right. So the state actually has, I guess if you want to call it, first right of refusal to this money. It was such a small amount that they didn't have a project to use, so we're basically cleaning up what was left over from them. But in order for them to facilitate it, they do have some administrative burden that comes along with it, you know, record keeping and double checking and looking at plans and stuff like that. As part of that activity, they do get some money back, $122,000. In this case, it's proportional to the amount of money that they get. So every tech stock grant that we get or have ever gotten has that same line item in there. This is nothing special. Perfect.

Thank you. Anybody else? If not, I will move this one.

That'll work. I have a first from Patrick.

Second.

I have a second from, just a moment. I have a first and a second from, who was that, Karen? Yes, sir. All right. Any public comment on item G?

Ginger Moore.

Ginger.

Good morning, and I love you all.

I actually was looking at, right before this meeting a couple days ago, I looked at Texas Scorecard, and they were talking about the three elected railroad commissioners and Exxon Mobil, and they're saying that it's basically a pocketbook for Exxon Mobil to gain money from carbon. So when I saw carbon right after that, I became excited and I said, why do we have carbon reduction program and why is this 500,000 going toward that versus going towards maybe our roads or something else? And so I talked to our city manager prior to the meeting and he explained that that money will go to the actual pavements and sidewalks and stuff. It's not going for a carbon reduction program from the Biden administration and global warming and all that stuff. So I felt better after I talked with our manager. And Patrick, thank you for taking that up for me because I did send him a message. And you do respond. All of you do respond. And Tommy's mine, but I usually talk to Patrick. I don't know why. He's better. Well, well, yes he is, but that's not why. And thank y'all so so I I now approve this so you can approve it as well.

Thank you for your permission, Ginger. We are good. Is there any more public comment? I love it. Alright, so I have a first and a second public comments complete will take a vote. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Item G passes 7-0. All right, now let's move over to the regular agenda. Comments regarding items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above. To participate, please sign in with the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called in the order they signed in. Comments are limited to the less than three minutes. Applicants, proponents, and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit their remarks to less than five minutes. We'll go into item A. Second reading of an ordinance establishing a right-of-way infrastructure fee by amending Appendix A fee schedule, Article A8.000, utility-related fees, Section A8001, reserved by replacing such reserved section with Section A8.001, right-of-way infrastructure fee, providing for severability and providing for an effective date. Presentation made by Operations Director Patrick Ferrett. Patrick, before you start, there's a lot of people here for other items than this. So how many public comment do you have on this item specifically?

13. 13.

So we're going to look at nearly 40, 45 minutes of public comment after this discussion. If you're not here for this one, I know some of y'all are here just for planning. We'll probably not get to the next item until approximately 10 o'clock. So if some of y'all don't want to sit through this one, you now know what time. We will not start item B before 10 o'clock. All right, with that, Patrick, carry on, please, sir.

All right. Good morning, Mayor, Council, City Manager. We are before y'all today with a second reading of the ordinance that y'all passed last week for the establishing a right-of-way infrastructure fee and a billing methodology for that. want to kind of just walk through y'all very walk through with y'all very very quickly um y'all heard it last week so it's still pretty fresh on your minds but we talked about the high points then we've got some feedback since that time and we want to kind of just hit the the points of that are going to be adjusted in this second reading from that first reading and then we can talk through those individually as you all seem fit so First and foremost, straight out of the gate, the original proposal that you all approved last week was that $15 for all residential type properties. As staff went back and based on some feedback that we got from you all and the citizens, we have gone back to the drawing board and we've got that number down to $875. So instead of a $15 fee per residence or per multifamily property, that fee will now be $875 as approved in this second reading or as proposed for this second reading. We've also included the special use categories. These were always present, but we didn't have them in that first reading just due to an oversight. So we included a table that listed these special uses so that we could build them specifically, because they have a little bit different calculation on how they're calculated. So the airport, Goodfellow Air Force Base, and the schools are in that table. Also looking back, we understand that some of the school districts and the apartment complexes, we do have a clause in there in which we could initiate for the first year a half rate for those entities because some of those, when they start compounding, are very, very large. we had that in the ordinance already so we we decided as staff and through some conversation with individual council members to go ahead and initiate that so for the first year the schools will initiate at a half rate in october 21st of 2027 they will go to the full rate per the ordinance at that point

Mr. Mayor, if I may jump in really quickly. Item four, and Patrick has this on his PowerPoint presentation. One thing that we did look at through the budgeting process, we did not want to reduce the amount of seal coat work that would be done with this 875 fee. I apologize, I should have started with this. Similar to the council, city staff has received somewhere around 30 to 40 emails related to the right-of-way use fee. And there was messages of not wanting to have the fee altogether, and there was others of wanting to make our fee more comparable to what other cities of our size are paying. And so this is what brought the idea of the 875, excuse me, number for the residential side of things. also going back to utilizing the schools at the half rate there and I will share that I met with the school district yesterday and made them aware of this and this will also be for any school within our within our city as well but item four is not something that will be on the table as part of this of this adjustment that's an error that that's on the on the screen there and we can talk about that a little bit more on how we have cuts in other areas to be able to continue our seal coat program we wanted to make sure we were maintaining our roads so i apologize about that interruption there patrick but please please keep going

And then just for clarification purposes, again, this isn't necessarily in the ordinance, but we are going to maintain the contribution to the CVCAA to assist with those that may be in need of helping financially pay their utility statement, not just this fee, but their utility statement in general that the city hands out. So we'll be contributing that $100,000. Again, that's going to be going through the budget process and not necessarily through this ordinance. so that we have the availability to critique that every year and see if we want to go up, down, or leave it the same on an annual basis. I kind of want to go into just a little bit about what the reduction means. from an application standpoint. When we talked about the $15, that was proposed in order to fully cover what our maintenance activities were today, including our sealcoat program. Obviously, our sealcoat program is a big bulk of our fund. We spend anywhere from 3.6 to $3.8 to $4 million a year on seal coating historically, and that was in order to meet that eight-year cycle that Council gave us the goal in order to accomplish. I think we've been very forthcoming that that cycle has spread over the course of time, and I kind of want to show what the impact of that is and what the impact of reducing that program or impacting that program through a lack of resources does. So if you'll see in 2025 there, that total box, the red plus the blue boxes, There, that is the amount of quantity that we should have seal coated in 2025. What you see there in blue is what we were actually able to seal coat based on the funding that was available to us and just the accommodation of those inflationary costs over time. I think Phil mentions in his town hall meetings that the cost of asphalt has gone up 13% since 2020. This is the effect of that. So you kind of see we're already starting to reduce from what we would have done back in 2016-2017 down a little bit there in 2025 already. In 2026, we had to reduce that even further. So we took the 956,000 square yards that were supposed to be in 2025, threw them into 2026, and then you have a little over 200 square yards that should have been done in 2026 that didn't get done. So we're having to carry over another proportional amount down into 2027. In 2027, what we should be doing is, again, that total column we are having to carry or what we can complete with the $1.8 million that the 875 grants us is that portion in blue there. So you can see we're slowly losing that ground time over time, year over year in our steel coat program. We're going to have to carry over the 390 plus the 1.3. And you can kind of see how that just expands out. If you want to see what that means in the long term, that's what it looks like to 2032. By 2032, we're going to have over 10 million square yards of asphalt. that should have already been preserved, should have already had a treatment on it, that is not going to see anything up until that point based on the amount of funding that the 875 carries. So again, just making you guys aware of that repercussion, not to change your vote on the 875 this morning, but to make you aware moving forward that that 875 isn't necessarily being proposed as being a sustainable number, but something that we need to work toward as a partner and as a group into how do we start recovering some of that number back so that we don't get into this problem of 2032. I kind of liken street maintenance as to kind of brushing your teeth. You can brush your teeth for 20 years and you can do great and not have any problems, but as soon as you stop, you start getting cavities. Your teeth start decaying, right? Streets are no different. We've done a phenomenal job for the last 10 years putting over $172 million into our streets. That's $172 million of investment over the last two years into our roadways. But if we don't continue maintaining that, all of that investment can go away in the blink of an eye if we don't prioritize this moving forward and keep this program going. So just to make sure that we're all aware of what this means, again, not to change the conversation today, but moving forward for future council, I wanted it on record that this is a conversation that's very real and has very real repercussions on our infrastructure.

Patrick, before you go to the next slide, how would you prioritize what streets will be covered and which ones won't as we move forward and leave some of those behind?

So in our initial eight-year program that we had, we had already clustered streets, if you will, into geographic locations because the goal was to sealcoat every roadway in town within that eight-year period. So we covered every roadway. So there wasn't necessarily a prioritization as much as there was a geographic clump clustering in order to get that efficiency. It doesn't make any sense to have a contractor work over here, bounce across town, bounce across town. Let's keep them in one area, hit that area, and then systematically move across town. So the way we're prioritizing the reduced capacity is exactly that. We're just reducing those clusters to a smaller cluster and then grabbing and then slowly moving versus quickly moving across the geographic city of San Angelo.

I don't know if I understand that, but I'm looking for specifically the main streets in our shares will get covered. The streets I live on, the streets all of us live on, everywhere here, we're not on a main street. And some of those are the ones in most dire need of care and prevention. I'm asking how do you prioritize those that are, say, three blocks, four blocks, six blocks off the main road.

I understand.

That are probably in the worst condition of all of them.

Correct. And so there's different classifications of roadways. The roadway that goes in front of your home is classified as a local road. Those are the roadways that serve the least amount of traffic. They're actually built to the lowest standard because of that fact. and then you have our collectors that bring all the traffic from the local roads to the arterials, and your arterials are the biggest roads. To put an example of what an arterial is, any rehabilitation project that we've done over the last 10 years was an arterial roadway. And the reason we prioritize those is because they have the biggest impact on our traffic system. They're carrying the most traffic, most days, highest speeds, biggest impact. And those are the ones that need to be fixed in order to have the most impact on our citizens and our visitors alike. SILCO in this environment, if we have to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate how we do that, is going to go through that exact same process. We're going to have to prioritize those highest use roadways and make sure that those are staying solid so that we impact the most people we can in a positive way, and our local roads are going to be the ones that unfortunately are going to suffer in that prioritization. Thank you, Patrick. That was basically the end of the presentation. Again, I just kind of wanted to walk through you guys what is different from last Wednesday to today. We still have a recommendation that we approve the right-of-way infrastructure ordinance with the changes and the guidance that I presented to you all today. And if approved, I just wanted to make a note that this ordinance will be published on the clerk's website, and we do have hard copies available if anybody wants to go through and actually read through the details of the ordinance. But with that, staff's recommendation is approval of the second reading, and I'm happy to answer any questions or comments that you all may have.

Patrick, I'll kick it off, and thanks for your question. First thing I want to do is I want to thank the fellow council members and staff and citizens that spent three or four days over the weekend trying to figure out a way to amend this. But I think this is a critical point in what we look at as far as streets. And when we all campaign, the number one thing or the number two thing we always hear behind public safety is streets. And I want to reiterate None of us want to be here in this position, but we've spent a lot of money over the past, since 2014, in that bond money. Now we don't have a well to go to anymore, and this is the way. It's not a long term, but it's a bridge to hopefully get us to a point where our economic development will decrease the need and the termination of this right-of-way fee in the future. I'm not alone here, and I'm not trying to lecture. I just want you to know we've all got a lot of email. and contacts and phone calls and texts over the weekend. And I wanna thank y'all for spending time to try to find something that's a little bit more palatable to everybody to get us through the future. But I think the end goal is to have enough economic development that this goes away in time. But with that, I'll go ahead and open it up to the dice and I'll start down here. Tommy, I'm gonna start with you, sir.

Patrick, what is the cycle now with the 875? We were once every eight years. We've moved up to once every 12 years with what you've been able to do most recently. What is the cycle now at 875?

So again, on that previous slide that I showed, we only are gonna expand that. So we're gonna be at the 14, 16 year rotation very, very quickly. Depending on how we move forward in the future, we'll even dictate if we are able to continue the seal coat program, if that seal coat is still a viable option, or if we need to reevaluate our services and how we address street preservation moving forward. But those are all decisions that need to be made, you know, moving forward. But that cycle will continue to expand, and it's going to expand exponentially as we move forward, as our streets don't get that preservation method and continue to deteriorate. If you remember, a deterioration curve drops off, and so it gets bigger as it grows, as it ages. So it's not a steady decline. It is an actual exponential decrease.

So 14 to 16 years, does that, I don't want to put words in your mouth, does that mean there will be some streets that will not likely ever again be seal-coated?

In all reality, Tommy, or Councilman Hebert, if staff has to prioritize roadways with a finite amount of funding, There will be a prioritization of those roads, and there are very likely streets that will not get preservation treatment in the traditional sense that we've known over the last 10 years, yes.

So then that means more potholes, more street deterioration that then likely is going to demand...

Right.

full rehab, full rebuild?

The purpose of a proactive street preservation program is exactly that, to preserve the life of the roadway. If we're not doing those things, that roadway is going to continue to deteriorate, which means further potholes, further cracks, further raveling of the side of the road. And some of our streets already experienced that, right? So they're just going to feel that ramification much, much quicker. than some of our other roadways i'll be honest with you the roads that we invested millions and millions of dollars in and rehabilitation i'm going to protect those roads i'm going to put a treatment on there i'm going to make sure that that investment stays solid and so at and it will be at the expense of other roadways just because it has to be we have to make a business decision about that and in my in my book if we've put 10 12 million dollars into a roadway

we need to protect that and make sure again that that roadway that's carrying the most traffic is is staying viable for the for the bulk of our our users thanks patrick that's that's all for right now mayor mr mayor i'm sorry may i um add to that one thing that i wanted to uh to point out as well and i know patrick talked about this at uh the previous uh reading uh within the ordinance there is an annual review that has to come before council related to this fee and so We'll be able to, of course, continue to bid out our asphalt projects, our street projects, and we'll be able to come to council every year and show what projects are going to be able to take place, review the fee if it needs to go away because we've had economic development come in, if there's an adjustment that needs to be made to it at that time. And so there will continue to be insight from the council, and it'll be reviewed annual on a basis similar to our stormwater fee or our water rates that are out there. So just wanted to make sure that that was known.

So will we say this is a restricted fund?

Yes, sir. This is a restricted fund. These funds that are associated with this fee, should council approve it, can only be utilized for right-of-way work, including the streets, bridge, budget. Excuse me, that's associated at this point.

Right. And I want to take a quick sidebar here. Tina, there's been public comment about there's other fund balances, and why don't we use those fund balances and bring it over. I think we need to point out that those are not slush funds. What a restricted fund actually is.

No, City Council has a policy goal of a 90-day fund balance in each of those funds that are considered operating funds. So we try to maintain that in case we have you know, some kind of catastrophe or what have you that we need to dip into that fund balance for whatever reason. And the other thing with fund balances is that they're not a sustainable source of operating funds. So once you use them, they're gone. They're not going to be there for the following year to cover those expenditures that you used them for in the budget. Thank you, Tina.

I really don't have anything. Mine was more along what Tommy asked, you know, the sustainability and things like that and whether we're MAINTAINING, STILL FALLING BEHIND AND WHATNOT. SO WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THAT'S A BIG DEAL, BECAUSE WE ALSO CAN'T EXPECT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO HIT IF WE DON'T HAVE GOOD ROADS AND GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO IT'S KIND OF A CATCH-22 ALL AROUND.

First of all, I want to say thanks to city manager and senior staff for taking my phone call last Thursday morning and working through this reduction in this fee. One of the things that we've talked about, and I didn't see it on your slide, Patrick, is have some retirement communities and a couple of pretty good sized apartment complexes in my district. And that's what really triggered me asking questions. Will they be addressed any way different than what you had on your slides?

So the only difference in address, they will still pay the 875, the per door rate, if you will. But they are lumped into that half rate for the first year accommodation. So they'll be able to kind of manage that for the first year.

Okay. Excuse me, Councilmember, just to reiterate, that's for any apartment complex, retirement community, multifamily type development. They will have that half rate up front. Yes, sir. Until 10-1. Until 10-1, yes, sir.

Okay. I guess I could probably go over the same thing that Tommy asked. My concern is I've still got granddaughters in this town that at some point in time in the future will be citizens on their own. If we don't keep these roads the way they are, then some future council— Some future citizens are going to have to pay for the complete rehab of some of these roads if we don't... Is that a fair statement?

That is a fair statement, and to put that into perspective, when we talk about preservation, a preservation method like seal code is about $3.10 per square yard. The next step up from that is a mill and overlay application, and you're talking anywhere from $60 to $65 per square yard. Then we go to FDR, which is about 75, and then a full reconstruction if we just completely let the road go or the road completely falls apart, as you're talking about anywhere from $190 to $200 per square yard to do. So obviously $3 is much, much more affordable in order to expand that life of that road than paying a $200 per square yard cost to rehabilitate that roadway. That's why we do what we do.

One other point I want to emphasize, because I do have several citizens in my district that are at or below the poverty line, so this money that we will be investing with a nonprofit to help with some of these fees, That's something that will come back to the council every year, the same as this. So if we had to come back sometime next year and say, hey, that 875 is not cutting it, and we may have to go to 10 or whatever number it may be, that money is still going to be there to help these citizens pay for that particular fee if they qualify.

If that's council's desire on an annual basis. Yes, sir.

All right. That's all right now.

I guess with your slides of your bar graphs there. So kind of going back to what two major said, did we cut funding for so-called or did we go back and find it?

Number four on his slide, the original slide. So to answer your question, we are continuing to fund seal coat as it is right now in the budget. So we do have an extension of the work that's being done, as we talked about at the last meeting. We've historically had that eight-year window for seal coating. Based on the funding we have now, that's extended out. But based on the 875 fee, we're approving seal coating as our funding is now.

Okay. so is your graph showing you that or was it what was going to have to be reduced on the original 875 proposal no the graph still represents the steady decline of that program so that's that says before this the row it was even looked at that's what it would have been yes sir if you remember in our tir our target increase request process where we come up and we say we need additional funding

for this, we had asked for an extra million to be thrown into that. And obviously, in the economic environment we're in, we didn't get approved for that. So that graph represents that decline and that deficiency.

Well, I appreciate the fact that if we're asking more of the citizens, we went into our budget and said, where can we cut? I think that's something that's needed. It shows that we are listening. We are trying. Everything has gone up for everybody, for us as citizens, for us as a city. So it's a never-ending cycle of just more and more and more. I mean, I made less this year than I did last year, so I'm going backwards here, and so that's what we've all got to figure out is where we can find that divide. Streets are still the number one complaint that I get. I'll go with number two. Fees are the number one complaint. Streets are right after it, and they kind of coincide. I still think it was... It's a mix between just expenses going up overall everywhere and a failure of... leadership of San Anzo to figure out a way to get our tax base up to afford this stuff that the citizens want, citizens need, that we want for the future. How do we figure that out? There's several items on the agenda today that kind of coincide with that in different ways. We've got to figure out how to build that base up without having to raise our property taxes, raise our fees. So that's something that I think we've It's not just the council, but just in general, our economic development, our Chamber of Commerce, we've got to figure out how to, our developers, figure out how to sustainably grow to be able to have the money we need to fix the stuff that we already have and will need in the future. With this, if we did vote it down, That means it's got to come. You either have to cut it completely or we've got to go back into our budget and figure out where else to cut. And that could be police, fire, our employees' salaries. It could be other services that people are always asking for more. So I think that's... The toughest part is if this goes down, then where else are we going to have to cut next? I think our new student manager has done well in his short tenure of finding ways to cut costs. I'm looking forward to the next year and the next budget cycle to see how he can further help that and keep coming together. So I think we did a good job of collaborating on this and getting the fee down to... It's still a fee, but at least more reasonable than it was. I mean, almost cut in half. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Patrick, I appreciate all the work and I appreciate the intent and the accommodations for the community. It's very gratefully received. I appreciate what this means for the city as a whole. I can't summarize any better than my colleagues already have, so I'll leave it there. I would only ask what would the impact on the community be if an unfavorable ruling is made in Cunningham v. City of Austin? Can somebody speak to that?

At this point, that's so speculative. And if we want to talk through that, Mayor, I'd ask that we convene into executive session if we really want to address that.

I think anything that goes into a legal, and everybody needs to understand, if it goes to a legal conversation, we're governed by law. We have to go into executive on that. It's not that we want to. It's just that's where it goes. But long story short, you have vetted this out. And at that point, we're proceeding with what we feel is perfectly fine.

I mean, I will say we would be bound by that Court of Appeals decision because we are in that district. So however it turned out, that would be binding on us. It's just now in district court, barely filed as of March, so it'll be a while. All right.

Thank you.

Do you have any more questions, Karen?

No, sir.

Miss Mary?

Patrick, how long or how many times then how long the span between when this is not a new concept, this right-of-way fee, so how long has it been brought to us and what's the time frame in between and I guess why did it ultimately not pass?

You are correct. In some form, this has been brought up since 2018 to Council and discussed through various budget workshops, various strategic planning workshops since 2018. I believe this is the fourth time that it's come before Council. It hasn't necessarily made it to a vote, but I will say, and I think we can all agree, that the economic condition that we're facing today has been different than those prior cases, those prior conditions. 2020 we were right there and then covet hit and we had some some assistance from the feds to kind of help keep operations going and so we were able at that time to to defer any any decision on this fee but this isn't something that we just came up with six months ago this has been on the books and in conversation for several years now it's in one reiteration or another

You were mentioning some of the terms, and I don't understand, probably never will, but we talk about seal coat, and then you gave examples of the higher-priced items. Is there something other than seal coat? I mean, is that the bottom dollar? I'm not advocating throwing good money after bad, but is there something else, maybe in between, that we could do to kind of limp along?

There is no better bang for your buck preservation method than sealcoat. I'll caveat that with saying there is also no more politically unfavorable application than sealcoat, which is why you'll see I mentioned sealcoat and HA5 in the same sentence earlier. HA5 is an alternative process that we use to sealcoat on the roads that are that are candidates for that. It takes a much, much more better conditioned road in order to receive HA5. Sealcoat can go on a broader range of roadways. But on the roads that we can get HA5 on, we absolutely put them on there. It costs us a few cents more, a couple nickels more to do it. But again, it doesn't carry all the politically unfavorable aspects that Sealcoat does with the loose rock and the tar and the the disruption and everything that comes along with that. So we as staff And I'll kind of give council the praise here. I've been emboldened by staff over the last several years to go find new things and do something different than what we've always done. And I think we've taken advantage of that, which is why we're seeing H5, which is why you're seeing our spray patcher truck, which is why you're seeing the robotic crack sealer, why you're seeing some of these advancements and techniques and applications that traditionally we haven't done in the San Angelo, but we're trying to do better with more and keep our streets alive.

You know, I'm, of course, last week, and then I've always kind of touted this. It's just the way I was, I guess, brought up. Do more with less. And it's just still hard for me to get on board with anything that's going to take, you know, any creative way to take money out of the citizens' pockets. It's just your timing could not be any worse in trying to bring this. I mean, starting with COVID and then it's just like, what else? I don't know how many shoes have to drop before we get to the end of this. Even though the flood hit the east north side of town more so than the rest, has that flood, did it kind of exacerbate the Well, what's the word I'm looking for? Did that just kind of exploit how bad our roads are, or did that have any bearing on it whatsoever?

I'm actually going to counter that with it actually showed how valuable the preservation program is on our roadways. We lost one road. Upton was the only roadway where we actually had asphalt removal due to that flood. I mean, in some cases we had, you know, 10 feet of water running down our roadways and through our neighborhoods and all of our streets survived. I think that's a testament to the efforts that we've made over the last 10 years and just how important it is when you have those natural disasters and those highly in what could be a highly negatively impactful event and just how important all that prior planning and all that prior work is in those type of situations. So I'm going to say no and not in the sense that you expect it would have just destroyed us. It did not. I know several communities, it probably would. But because we've been so proactive in maintaining and preserving our roadways, it did not have the impact that you would expect.

Good. That's the first good thing I've heard. I guess like in my district, it's mainly Southland and the Bluffs. And I could see, if anything, it showed how it's draining and different things. And the only way that you can see if it really works is when it rains. That's why we don't know a lot about how it's affecting that. that is proof positive that the seal coat does does help it does help and it just scares me to death to see us go to have to start over you know with everything um i can appreciate very much your um your diligence in trying to reduce this fee. I mean, we walked out of here last week. I mean, it was horrible for the citizens and for us too. But I fail to see My gut tells me that we can still do more, do more with less. We have to take care of fire and police. That's a given. It doesn't matter if we don't have any roads, if it's so unsafe to even drive on them. We're in this. Discounting this rate doesn't make it better. It's less of an impact, obviously, but it's kind of like, and I'm not saying this is a bad policy, but discounting a bad policy doesn't make it a good policy. But the fact that y'all went back and really dug deep is very encouraging and very promising. I do want to comment this on kind of where we are. Our city manager now, I mean, he hasn't been here a month and immediately put a hiring freeze on not police and fire. But I think it was kind of anticipated that this was going to be happening. You know, there's just too many things, like the perfect storm. and so he took great went to great lengths the staff did to to start carving down any of the fluff and that's that that process helped us get to where we are right now i really i can appreciate that i know that that philosophy will carry forward. I mean, nothing against Daniel Valenzuela. He's a good man. He's a friend of mine. This is a new regime, if you will. And we've all honed in on every single dollar. A lot of retired people, at least over 65, live in my district. And it's not so much the money as it is the principle. We are constantly, and we're at the mercy. You know, government doesn't create anything but a mess most of the time. And so it's the people that we can get behind to do this. It's philosophically, I hate going to the people every single time. Without community, there is no unity. And trying to Mary, those two concepts is just, well, it's kind of pick your least battles. I don't know. I'm waxing and waning on this. I still believe that we can do more for the citizens without asking them to pay for it again and again and again. But I have great confidence. Thank you. I have great confidence in the staff, and I have confidence in our council, too, that we will find a way. We always have. The community doesn't need us if there's not a community to govern. I feel like I'm giving a concession. We kind of need to keep it on the item. I'm sorry, Tom. No, you're fine. I'm really, I have confidence in our staff that we can find a better way and find extra ways to help save. The morale of the community is probably at an all-time low just with everything that's happened. The flood, the data, everything is just constantly But I think the community will rally behind us in ways that we couldn't even maybe that we hadn't even thought of. I just think that we can do better. And I hope and pray to God that we will. But I'll shut up. But I cannot thank you enough for going back over this and cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting. I can already tell a difference. We can. But I need you to keep cutting. The people need us to keep cutting. Thank you, Patrick.

Patrick, you've heard from us all here. Now I want to hear from you. If you were able to take it forward at the level that you want to do, was that the original ask of $16.5 million to do your maintenance? I mean, did that even?

That was to maintain the operations that you see today within those two divisions, yes, sir.

Okay. And so now we're down at $10.5 million. In fact, we're actually under that now. I want to say, after we've heard a consensus here, to go back and this is where you make a decision about streets. We'll talk about the budget once a year, but we will feel the effect of it, you know, both this, especially this agenda item, you know, in our streets, we feel the effect of every day. With that, I'm going to open it up. Is there any more questions from the council? Harry?

Probably not a question, probably more of a comment right now. Many of the people in this room knew that before I retired, I worked for Goodyear. So we did seal coat on 55 miles of road on a regular basis. And the reason we did that is because, as Patrick says, it's a lot less expensive to try to maintain a road with seal coat than it is to replace that whole road. Millions of dollars. And I'm afraid that's what's going to happen. Future councils are going to have to tackle that. My granddaughters are going to have to foot that bill. I'm really thinking that we need to continue the seal coat program at some level. Now, would I like to do it at the mayor's figure? Yeah, I'd certainly like to do that. But I also understand that everybody is under some constraints right now, financial constraints right now. Gasoline is way high. Groceries are way high. And it's difficult for some people. They've got to make decisions every day. That's why we've got this $100,000 put back into this nonprofit to help for those citizens can pay for that. Second thing I'm going to make a comment on, I may wait until Jonathan comes for the next item, and that is people keep telling me, just raise the property tax. Property tax only pays for about 81% of the police and fire budgets. So we're talking about seal coat programs. What else have we got to do in the city? That's all come out of sales tax. PROPERTY TAXES DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH.

JOE?

SO YOU TALK ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO THEY SET UP THE SEAL COAT PROGRAM. WHAT HAPPENED IN COUNCIL BACK THEN, 10 YEARS AGO? I KNOW YOU'VE EXPLAINED IT.

I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH IT AGAIN AS MANY TIMES AS I NEED TO. is actually a few more than 10 years ago. In 2014, council challenged us or understood that we've had a lot of deferred maintenance on our roadways and that we were to the point of needing to do something. And so they emboldened us staff to go forth and get a true accountability and condition rating on our roadways with the food growth study. which we did that. And what that study did is it ranked and it gave a rating, a condition assessment on every one of our roadways. But it not only gave us a condition assessment, it also told us what would be the most fiscally responsible way to rehabilitate that road and improve its condition, whether that was with the seal coat, whether it was a mill and overlay, whether it was a reconstruction. You know, some of the feedback we got was, I can tell you what roads are bad. Yeah, but do you want, what this did is it told us whether we needed to spend $200,000 a square yard to fix it or could we get by with $65 a square yard. It really maximized our money. Along with that, council gave us the very generous support of increasing our seal coat program from $600 per year up to $4 million per year and gave us that goal of an eight-year cycle on that seal coat program. We absolutely did that. We nailed that goal. We met it. And now we're going through our second round of that cycle. So the streets that we did first, we're coming back around on them. In addition to that, they even kind of hedged their bet, if you will, and gave us capital money to go rehabilitate the worst streets that that food grow list identified. So your Bell Streets, your MLKs, your Southwest, sunset will be the last roadway out of that $84 million of bond money that the council gave us. They also graciously gave us a grant rider that has gone through and further got us an additional to date $32 million of roadway money that was put in directly into our transportation infrastructure and then hopefully next week we'll add another $20 million to that. So that's another potentially $52 million of additional money that the council emboldened us and gave us the matching funds in order to do. I'm out of matching funds. So that $52 million, is gone in the foreseeable future because I don't have any money to go match it with. Most of those grants require a 20 percent match. I'll pay 20 cents on the dollar for money all day long. So it's a very good program and it's an amazing thing to get, but we'll also have to have those matching funds available in cash to do it. I don't necessarily have that anymore today because we've maxed that out. but then there again that's where i get to that 172 million dollars of investment over the last you know 10 12 years and we need to make sure that we protect those that investment that we've made okay

12 years ago, they came up, they realized we had a problem and we needed to fix it.

That is correct.

Yet a lot of things have changed over the last 12 years. Go back to cost of living, cost of inflation, just like Harry said, everything has gone up. Not only the materials, but the employees. And we have to have good employees to perform the work. If we don't maintain those ploys and they go to a different city, we're back to square one and we're not giving a good product. It's a big circle. I know we don't like this fee, and I'm glad you may have lowered it, and I hope we can come to an agreement because we need to keep this program going. I just wanted to reiterate, a lot of things have changed in 12 years, and we have to, we're back at the drawing table where we have to solve problems. I'm glad we've got the grant writer. I'm glad you've been doing your due diligence to try to find outside funding, but again, we're at a standstill where we've got to do something about it.

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT? WITH THAT, I THINK WE COME TO A POINT WHERE We try to find the eloquent words to say this is where we go forward and we take care of streets and try to maintain ourselves for a sustaining city or we walk away and leave some holes in there also which will create headcount and issues in our budget as we come with the next agenda item. So as the mayor, I'll take the position to make the initial motion to approve the ROW infrastructure ordinance as presented at the 875. I have a first from me, and I have a second from Tommy Hebert. Now we're going to go in the public comment. And as we head in the public comment, I'd just like to make everybody aware that every person up here on this counter has spent, or on the dais and staff here, spent countless hours over the past six, seven days trying to make this thing as workable as we can and still make the city a place that we're proud to be in. So with that, let's open up public comment. Heather first.

Renee Everett. Ginger Moore.

Ginger. And thank you again for your service. My issue is what happens if we approve this and you don't change the budget and then you find out it's not legal and then you're stuck with going back and taking this off the plate and so that's that's one issue and the other issue is um the people that cannot afford it they consider this a nuisance fee and i don't know what you're going to do because i understand that you've tried every issue to to reduce the cost and it's now it's down to 10 million is that correct

It's under that. It's less than that, Ginger, but we can't go specific.

Okay, you can't answer me. Okay. But even at $10 million, that's a need. We all need good roads, but you need to look at this seriously in case it's not, in case it is a tax. So, thank you.

Thank you, Ginger. Next.

Larry Jackson.

Mr. Jackson. Next.

Brandon Sanders.

I know Brandon's here.

Okay, good morning. Brandon Sanders, local commercial broker, property manager of commercial properties. My properties fall in several districts, primarily 1, 5, and 6. Y'all addressed all the concerns I'd sent, so I just wanted to say thank you for paying attention, listening to the concerns, and trying to adjust those rates. I really appreciate it. Last thing I just wanted to say real quickly was stormwater fees, when they were implemented, were supposed to be on water bills. to the tenants paying the water. It goes to the property owners, which has caused a lot of confusion when there's tenant-landlord situations. So I'd just like you to consider that when you set up the billing process. So that's all I had. Thank you again. Brandon, thank you. Next.

James Hopper.

James, do you want us to bring a mic to you, or are you good? All right. We have all day.

Good morning. First of all, I'd like to say I do not live in the city limits. And I had a lady ask me the other day, why does this even matter to me? Because I don't live in the city limits. I'm not going to pay... 15, 8, whatever. My whole point is I live on a fixed income. And I have to cut every month because everything goes up like y'all suggested. Everything goes up. I have to cut. Y'all should. I know it's hard. It's hard to cut. But you have to make concessions somewhere. And if I have to do it, y'all have to do it. And Mary, I'd really like to appreciate your wisdom I appreciate your wisdom on this. And the other two, I'm not sure who they are that have kind of voted against this. Thank you for your wisdom. And the chaplain this morning had a great prayer that we all have the wisdom. And I would just ask y'all to rely on the wisdom that you all have as grown men and women. And think about the citizens of San Angelo. We just can't keep Funding everything. Somewhere, something's got to stop. We just can't keep doing it. I can't keep doing it. My budget, I don't make more money every month. Just like somebody has said, you said, you make less money last year. I make less money every month because everything goes up. And I just can't do it anymore. You know, I own my home, but I've lived in San Angelo my whole life. I'll be 69 in a few days. I may have to move because I just can't afford everything that you all put on us. And the other thing I'd like to say is, again, since I don't live in the city, I don't have to pay this. But I go to HEB. I go to Walmart. I go to Academy. All of those businesses are not going to absorb this fee. They're going to pass it on to me. And I would just like you all to realize that eventually I'm going to have to pay it because they're going to have to pay it and they're going to pass it right on to me. So please, please, Mr. Mayor, you councilmen that are all for this, please consider that. And there's a whole lot of, you know, used to, San Angelo was promoted as a retirement community. Well, we got a lot of retirees here that are living on fixed incomes. What do they do? I'm not going to take the money that is available for somebody to pay my water bill, because I live in the city anyway. But I'll go to work with this if I have to. So please consider it. And again, thank you, ma'am, for your wisdom. All of y'all, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hopper.

Brenda Schwartz.

She's here.

I want to start out by saying good morning and thank you for all your service, all you city council and all of our officials here in San Angelo. I'm all I'm asking the council to do is to go back and look at our roots, go back to the basics. What did you vow your oath to office? Who did you say you were representing? What constitution are you supposed to uphold? So taking a road fee and sticking it into the water, or roads and putting it into the water fee, is actually misrepresentation, taxation without representation. And I'm just asking you to go back. And I would like to know how many citizens have said that we really want this road fee over water and over our jobs. Like you've all said and what was mentioned previously is the what can lead to tyranny and abuse and prison and like what our veterans, some of them have gone through. There's also another tyranny and it's called financial tyranny. And the more restrictions and the more government money that we pour into our city, the more tyranny we're adding onto ourselves. I'm asking you to go back and think about the freedoms and the price that was paid to bring us to this place. And I do want to thank you because it takes a lot of courage to serve the public. I understand. But it would be so much more to have healthy citizens that could pay, healthy citizens that could afford. Financially sound citizens can be a great help to our communities. And to free those citizens with their finances is going to bring in more tax money and more opportunity for everybody. So instead of adding fees and more financial opportunities abuse to us, the more free we'll have and the more taxes we'll have. I know some of y'all are kind of looking at me a little strange. But if you'll take away our taxes, we can be more productive citizens. And more productive citizens create more taxes right here. So I'm just asking you to think on those thoughts. And I thank you for your time and your consideration. Thanks. Bye-bye.

Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.

Daniel Cardenas. Danny.

You have all day to get up here, Danny. When we throw the clock, it's a different switch.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the council. Thank you for this opportunity that you gave me this morning to make my presentation and assistance. Thank you. I am here because I'm a concerned citizen. I'm better well off than most But not most, but a lot of people not in my district in San Angelo. I'm not going to say District 3, because I'm for everyone in this community. But I'll go back to the time that I served on the city council. I served 12 years on the city council, along with Tommy Hebert, also, many years ago. But I know he looks older than I do, but we're about the same age. But anyway, I remember one time we had a proposal of a 15% on a water bill. Well, I'm sitting there, and I said, man, 15%. At that time, I wasn't financially able to pay my water bill, period. And I still get my water cut off sometimes. I'm not ashamed to say that, because I can relate to people. But it's not because I don't have the money to pay. It's because I put it off. But anyway. The staff had proposed a 50% tax increase on a water bill. I opposed it. I suggested to the council that we should look at it from a different angle. I said, I'll support something, but not 15%. I said, I'll move that we... New 5% at that time, okay, from 15 to 5. So I'm not going to prolong it too long because I just want you to look at it through the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ, how he sees and how this will affect our community, the sinner citizens, the poor, the indigent. $100,000 is... a little bit, but it should be $200,000 in my opinion. But I'm not here for that at this time. But I do push that we do increase that for the indigent. So by me saying that, I would like to make a motion to you to consider from 0% to 7%. Please. Thank you so much. May God bless you.

Thank you, Danny.

Coco Simpson.

Coco's here.

Good morning, y'all. Coco Simpson, SMD1. Thank you for texting me back the other day. I know y'all have all had about a million phone calls and all kinds of conversations. Once again, I just want to, I mean, this was a bad plan to begin with. Once again, y'all are cutting road and bridges. It's a bad plan at $15. It's an asinine plan at $8.75. You're once again cutting roads and bridges. I mean, this is going to exponentially deteriorate our roads, period. I don't know if y'all are paying attention to what's happening overseas, but diesel is $6 a gallon right now. It's probably going to be $8 next week, $10 probably the week after that. It's going to get worse before it gets better. So cutting another million and a half dollars out of The budget that's a third of the size it needs to be is a dumb plan, period. I understand that y'all want to keep their 90 days of money in your fund balance. We would all like to keep a nest egg in our savings account. Every single one of us would. Savings accounts are there for emergencies, and I think this is an emergency that needs to be dealt with. You know, our roads and bridges, I mean, y'all's goals, y'all's job as the city of San Angelo is fire, police, roads, water. You have four jobs, period. But we are spending money on parks. We're spending money on social services. You know, $100,000, if you break it down into $15 a month, that helps 500 people through the course of a year. I mean, it... it's a fraction of the people that are going to need help you know i mean we have been 10 and 15 to death you know one one ten dollar fifteen dollar fee and a big deal you start stacking ten of those on top of each other that's 150 bucks a month and you know somebody making 30 or 40 i mean heck even a hundred thousand dollars a year that adds up I don't know if y'all realize what the poverty level is now, but it's over $100,000 a year, and most city employees are at, what, 60, 65? So most of your city employees are living in poverty. How many of them are really going to be affected by another $15 a month, or even $875 a month? I mean, dropping it down helps a little, but it does nothing but... expand, exaggerate the problem that we have. I think this is a bad idea. I think you'll need to table this. I believe you'll need to table the next one, too, and go back and revisit your budget, figure out where you can start scrimping and saving. I'm glad you stopped the hiring freeze. I think we really need to start on some attrition. If you start digging into digging into how many employees our city has and our county has, economic development will never grow out of this because we have no people that are not working in the sector that does not generate an iota of tax revenue. So until y'all start dealing with that problem, we'll never economic development our way out of this problem. Thank you and good luck.

Thank you, Coco. Number nine.

Lucy Gonzalez.

Good morning, council. Name a district, please.

Lucy Gonzalez, District 4. Fee, Lucy. Guys, it is so good to see you all. I've been where you have. I've been listening, so I'm not going to repeat a lot of what I've already heard. But I do want to say that when we did start the 2014 road project, And we didn't come to the citizens to raise their fees. We found the money somehow. And we went towards that. And we kept it up for 10 years. Yes, I know that it's important to maintain our streets. But I also believe that if you look hard enough, you can find it. And I appreciate so much that it isn't 15, that it's gone down to 875, whatever it is. It's just the fact that, yes, it's hard for everybody right now, but mainly to the people that are living on a fixed income. If we were all to be put on a fixed income, y'all wouldn't be so easy to say, yeah, let's raise it. You would be thinking about it. And you talk about your grandchildren. Hey, I understand. But you don't know what the future is going to bring. It may be a great economy by the time your children are around your age. But right now, I understand everything is so expensive everywhere we go. It's 10 cents more. A dollar more. And like I said, I'm not going to go over what everybody's already said. I just want y'all to remember where you came from and what you promised when y'all were campaigning. And we gave you our vote. And now we're asking you to vote for us. Thank you, and God bless you all. Patrick, thank you. Great job.

Good job, Lisa.

Next.

Dave Dirksen?

I'm Dave Dirker, SMD1. I'm not going to repeat what's already been said. I certainly agree with it. But one of the things that we can do to reduce wear on our roads, nobody's mentioned, is to do a better job programming our traffic controls. There is no reason at 545 in the morning that I've got to stop on Knickerbocker to let somebody come out of Parkview or Sunset to turn right. A traveling vehicle doesn't put that much wear on the road, but when you stop and when you go, that's when things start to get torn up. You know, I've been, I've talked to a number of people about this over a number of years, and I have three generations here, so this is more And my son and grandsons and grandsons couldn't be here because they're at work. But that's something we really need to look at. Programming. I mean, why don't we have flashing lights at night? Stupid things. Thank you.

Thank you, Dave. Number 11.

Lyle Ann Thee.

Lyle Ann's here. I've seen her.

Good morning. Lyle McClain from District 2. I'm here to speak against this fee. And I'll start out by saying that under Article 11, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution, home rural cities, of which we are one, do have the authority to impose taxes as long as it's authorized by law or their city charters. The Texas Tax Code does require that local taxes be approved by voters through an election. However, local governments can impose regulatory fees without any voter approval so long as there is a connection to regulation. So obviously, Texas treats taxes and fees differently. A fee is typically tied to a specific service. You pay, you receive something in return, such as a permit or a utility service or permission to do something or to build something. The connection is direct and it's understandable. A tax, however, on the other hand, funds the general government operations, such as public safety, roads, infrastructure, and other services that benefit the entire community. I did a word search on our city charter for the word fees. There were over 200 hits, 21 pages of our city charter reference fees. And we have fees of all kinds of things. We have fees to adopt an animal. We have all sorts of construction fees. We have late fees. We have credit card fees. We have delinquent fees. We have fees to operate pools and spas. We have an abundance of fees. There's actually a few that I question because I don't think they fit the definition, but that's for another discussion. But most of these fees, all of these fees tie to a service, something that an individual wants, has requested. It's not assessed against the whole community. So I will mention the lawsuit in Austin came up, Cunningham versus the City of Austin, which was referenced earlier. That was filed in February, I'm sorry, March of 2026. That is just getting started. But this suit came about because Austin, they have what they call a, Transportation user fee, I think it's around $8. I don't remember the exact amount. But anyway, they put this on their citizens' utility bills. And this purpose of this fee is to fund maintenance, repair, and construction of roadways and sidewalks and so on. And it's on the utility bill. So if someone chooses not to pay that, well, they are subject to disconnection for the enforcement. it doesn't appear to be a regulatory fee but instead it's it's hid it's a fee hidden as a as a tax it's a tax hidden as a fee and this is the the whole gist of this lawsuit and this i believe that what we're trying to do here is also hide a tax behind the label fee thank you lolly number 12.

HENRY FITCHETT.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS HENRY FITCHETT, AS I SAID EARLIER, FROM PRECINCT TWO, AND I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SAN ANGELES, AS I SAID. I TOO HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME OF THE FEES, and the water and the rebuilding of our roads. I work in the construction. And our roads, a lot of them that I see, don't need repairs. And the ones that do need repair are not being repaired. There's also, in our area, the roads don't even have a curb, where we're in the city limits. And the road keeps going higher and higher and higher, and the water flow goes into people's yards. Like I said, I was born and raised here and I love St. Angelo, but the things that have been going on this past couple of years, it's ridiculous. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bishop.

Evelyn Smith.

I know Evelyn's here.

Good morning, everyone. Evelyn Smith from SMD5. And thank you, Karen, for all that you do. And for each one of you. I'm not going to repeat everything. I agree with everybody who's been up here for public comment. But I believe there is something else that can be done. And I've heard Mary say that. So I'm asking if we could put a pin in this and try to even get it lower. 875 is great. But if we can get it lower. And I have no problem with Repairing our road and structure, it is absolutely necessary. It is needed. I thank Patrick for everything he's done. When I drive down the road, I'm proud. It feels good to drive on it. I wish there was some other way we can do that besides taxing everybody. You already know that everything's going up and our paychecks don't go up. We're maxing out our paychecks. And so I just wish there's some other way we can do that. I'm kind of getting a little tired of paying taxes, and then I go to like Shannon, and they charge you an arm and a leg for their services, but they don't have to pay taxes. You know? I'd rather for them to go up on what they charge me than for me to be charged taxes because at least they're paying taxes at some time or another. But I just ask each and every one of you just kind of reconsider that. I appreciate the 875 that's been done. But if we can just get together and do that, because if you tax out our paychecks, we can't spend any money in the city. So what happens with that? I'm already not buying anything, you know, because I'm saving stuff. So I like to help the city grow and spend some money on something else besides taxes. And I thank each and every one of you. Thank you, Evelyn.

Okay, so we've concluded public comment. We've had 14 people respond. to comment here this as a fee it includes all non-profits um evelyn so shannon tom green county sheriff's office pd coast i mean city of san angelo everybody participates in this i don't want anybody to think there's people that are excluded nonprofits are included with that it's time to go ahead and take a vote um do we do this individually or as a group as a group so we'll take that there's been a first that I made, a second by Tommy Hebert. We've finished public comment, we'll take a vote now. All of those in favor, say aye. Aye. We have a show of hands that are ayes. I have four, Tommy, Joe, me and Harry down here.

Any of y'all?

All right, so I have four ayes. Any of those opposed?

Nay.

Three nays. Item passes 4-0. Excuse me, 4-3. Item passes 4-3. All right, it's 1027, y'all. Let's take a break for about 10 minutes. Anybody that wants to come back to City Council? Anybody wants to bring back? Patrick will be here. We're usually waiting on Hebert. Did you beat Hebert? I was waiting for Danny to comment. 1043, we're going to bring the meeting back to order. The second reading and public hearing of an ordinance adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2026 and ending September 30th, 2027. This budget will raise more total property taxes than last year's budget by $962,035, which is 1.64%. And of that amount, $773,890 is tax revenue. to be raised from new property added to the tax roll. Presentation made by Finance Director Jonathan Flores. Jonathan, you're on.

Mr. Mayor, if I may jump in quickly. Phillip, you're on. I will be brief. I know we've had a long meeting to this point, but I really just thought this would be a great opportunity to give the staff a thank you, including Jonathan, his team, as well as the assistant city managers, as well as all the staff that have helped build this budget, especially over the last several weeks. probably spent more time with Jonathan than I have my own family. But it's all part of the job of being able to get this done. Just as a reminder to council, this is all something that started in April of this year to be able to move towards the budget. And as we continue moving forward, we'll be able to have these conversations going forward. But I think, too, as a discussion that's been out here, there's been several cuts that have been part of this budget, and we want to talk about that. But as we continue moving forward, we'll be able to also look and see what other options are within our budget to keep our service level. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jonathan.

Good morning. So again, this is the second public hearing of an ordinance adopted in the 2026-2027 budget. Again, if we don't adopt the budget this morning, we'll have to come back at a special meeting to adopt before September 30th. Just again to start off with some of the cost controls that we have built into this budget as well as cost controls that have gotten into effect before this budget, before October 1. The first one being unfunded department requests. Again, departments request every single year for increase in different items from personnel increases to materials and supplies increases. This year we decided not to fund $3.1 million worth of those department requests. either due to the fact that it's just not the right time or funding's not available or it's just not the right strategy at the moment. One of the other things that we look at is how can we finance our different products, the different things that we use. And so one of the things is deferral of the payment for PD technology contract of about $1.2 million. We're going to defer that to the next fiscal year for that first payment. One of the things that we enacted before this budget becomes effective is a hiring freeze. Currently, right now, we have about a 12% vacancy rate. If we held that vacancy rate for the remainder of FY27, we'll have $436,000. And again, if this hiring freeze remains into effect, we expect that vacancy rate to go up. So we should see more savings than just that 436. One of the areas that we looked at this year was the health plan. If you remember, we had to bring back a $4 million budget amendment to fund the health plan. So we looked at those costs. One of the things we decided to look at was the health plan formulary. We made some adjustments to the benefits that we were providing to our employees, and that saved us about $416,000 a year. We're also beginning to review training expenses anytime we send an employee out for training, whether it be required or not. We're trying to look at ways that we can do that a little bit cheaper to make sure that we still maintain our requirements, but we're using dollars wisely. And then software and hardware review by an IT board. This is a new IT board that we're setting up to review software costs. Of course, software cost is one of those things where it can be a value add to the organization and kind of multiply our costs. Ability to get work done, but at the same time we want to make sure that we're doing it wisely So this IT review board is going to be reviewing any new IT purchases beginning with the IT purchases that we have built into this budget And then I did want to mention that because we passed the right-of-way fee We are seeing no sealcoat reduction in this next year's budget Zeroing in on the general fund We're expecting to bring in $104 million and having a balanced budget with $104 million in expenditures. This $104 million in revenue reflects a flat tax rate for the next fiscal year as well as a 3% increase in sales tax. We also took the opportunity this year to review our user fees, planning permits, fire standby, and those revenues are budgeted in this budget as well. Um, expenditures on the expenditure side. Um, I just want to make a mention again about our rolling debt implementation. Normally general fund contributes about $1.9 million in equipment replacement. We were able to fund that on the debt side of the property tax rate. So that was allocated elsewhere into the general fund budget. We've seen this slide in different forms and different fashions, but this is everything that we were able to accomplish in this year's budget. Most of these are general fund focused, but a lot of these impacts are felt across all the funds. First off, the public safety grant administrator at $850,000. We were able to fund an additional permits combination inspector, which is going to help us keep up with state mandates. That came out to $82,000. Animal services increased care $80,000, 40,000 of that's dedicated to medical supplies for the next fiscal year. And then other department requests of $297,000. One of the things we were able to implement in this year's budget as well as a comp and class study adjustment plus a 2% cost of living or or a two percent cost of living. So employees will see at least a two percent cost of living adjustment and or a comp and class adjustment to help us catch back up to the market. Of course this also helps us fund our meet and confer contract for the next fiscal year. Health insurance costs for next year are budgeted at the expected claims for fiscal year 27. This was a an addition to the budget of 1.7 million dollars. This funds at least expected claims into the next fiscal years. One of the items that we decided to, we made a decision on with the right-of-way fee discussion is the fire pension contributions. If you remember prior and the proposed budget, we did have a fire pension contribution built in of about $1.2 million. That was gonna be a one-time payment to help us become PRB compliant in one year. We've removed that item from the budget and then we've also reduced the fire pension contribution from a 4.9% to a 1.5%. What this means is that over the next four to five years we are going to have to increase and review the fire pension every single year to make sure that we're in compliance with what the state pension review board has for us. So that is one of the items that's changed or that we're recommending to be changed. The money that we're removing from this budget will be allocated to the seal coat program so that we can continue to fund that at the current level and then in this budget we are budgeting for two additional development support positions this should help the development process for the city as a whole also we're pulling out an insurance contribution for for the fund balance this was at 350 000 dollars We're removing that, so we're reducing our ability next year to absorb different claims if our claims experience is a little bit higher than we expect, but we should be able to handle that in our current budget. And then again, I just want to mention seal coat program is not being reduced for next year. In total, all funds, total operating revenues are budgeted at $255 million, operating expenditures at $254 million, and we have a current revenue over expenditure of $1.2 million. A majority of that is Lake Nasworthy revenue over expenditures. That money is restricted by the voters. We have to take a measure to the voters in order to use that money, as well as an additional amount for hot tax as well. One of the things that is different in the ordinance that we brought to you this morning is a fire pay plan. Through the comp and class study, we did not adjust the pay plan schedule accordingly. This has a pay schedule that keeps all the different steps separated out. So when we do make a motion, if we could read in this pay schedule as well so that we can get it included in the ordinance, this allows us to satisfy that comp and class meeting adjustments as well. And finally, once we're ready for a vote on the budget, a separate vote is required, so we do have to go down the line. And then again, if we could have a motion that reduces the right-of-way fund to that 875 residential fee, as well as including the updated fire pay schedule in the budget ordinance.

Johnston, thank you for doing the amount of time that you spent on this. I know between the previous agenda item and this one, at this point, I don't think there's anything here we haven't seen. So I will start down the dais. Mary, I'm going to start with you if you have any questions on this item. Karen? Patrick? Harry? Joe? One. Tommy, you're going to break. Somebody's got to.

Does the removal of the one-time contribution to the fire pension fund still keep us in good standing with the PRB?

Yes, sir. I believe so. One of the items that was brought to us by the actuary was this five-year, four-year plan increasing 1.5% over those next couple years, next few years. And that was a plan that they were acceptable to. And then since we're committing to this plan, we'll also be building this into our forecast. So we remain compliant with that as well.

So PRB was good with the four, five-year plan?

Yes, sir. I think we have to, I think we have to go back and make sure that they are updated with the change in plan. But yes, this was one of the approved plans through the actuary. Yes, sir. Thanks. Yes, sir.

Councilmember Hueber, if I may jump in there as well. One thing I also want to commit to, this was something that was of importance to the fire department and did visit briefly with Chief Brody. One thing we want to commit to his staff is that we will continue to look at this and see if there's ways to be able to continue to fund and be in compliance with the PRB and whether that's through the budget process next year. If there is still a raise in sales tax that takes place and there's additional funding that can come that way, those will be open communications that still take place with the fire department. But to your question, we would be in compliance with one of the recommendations from the PRB at this point.

I just don't think y'all want, when you come to work tomorrow morning, you don't want to see the representatives of the PRB waiting at your office door. So I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Hebert. So at this point, we'll take a motion.

So moved.

I'll make a motion that we approve the budget that reduces the residential roadway fee to $875,000 and includes the updated fire pay schedule.

All right, so I have a first from Patrick. I'm going to get a second. Karen Hesse-Smith. Any public comment, Heather?

Coco Simpson.

Make a note that Coco waived her public comment. Any additional public comment? With that, all those in favor of item B say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, individually. I'm right. Tommy, we'll start with you in one.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. 7-0, twice. 875, yes. Read into it. Okay, we'll move to item C, second reading and public hearing of an ordinance fixing and levying ad valorem taxes for the current San Angelo tax year for use in support of the municipal government of the city of San Angelo, Texas for the 2026-2027 budget year, providing for the assessment and collection thereof, providing for when the tax shall become due, providing when the tax shall become delinquent, providing for exemptions, providing for the severability, providing for publication on the city-operated website, and providing for an effective date. Presentation made by Finance Director Jonathan Flores.

Good morning. So this is the property tax portion of our budget process. This, again, is a second reading in public hearing of the ordinance levying property taxes. Currently, the proposed rate is set at .7947 per $100 valuation. This tax rate is split up into three portions, maintenance, operations, and then a portion of maintenance and operations that's set aside for street infrastructure, and then a debt portion of the rate that helps us fund our debt service payments for the next fiscal year. Again, these are remaining flat. from the prior year's adopted tax rate. So there is no tax rate increase related to the rate increase. And then if once we're ready to approve a property tax, I do need the specific wording read out in the motion.

All right. Any questions from the dice? With that, I'll make the motion to read. I move that the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of .7947 per $100 valuation, which is effectively a 3.29% increased tax height. Can I get a second? I have a first from the mayor, a second from Mary Coffey. Any public comment, Heather? No. With no public comment, we'll take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item C passes 7-0. Item D, considering approval and agreement with the San Angelo Police Officers Coalition, establishing certain terms and conditions of employment for covered police officers to be effective October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2027, and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Presentation by Human Resources Director Veronica Sanchez and San Angelo Police Officers Coalition President Charles Flores. Who is Charles?

Good morning. Good morning, Council, Mayor, City Manager, Veronica Sanchez, HR Director. We bring before you a new and improved meet and confer agreement. The negotiation process for this annually usually happens around the spring, so we started negotiating around the spring. We have come to an agreement and that was what was submitted to you today. I don't have a presentation for this, but I can go over some of the highlights. Obviously the pay plan is one of the things that will be updated based on the recommendation from the class and comp study. We have also included a physical fitness and wellness program in this agreement. If certain standards are met, there's an opportunity for staff to get additional days off. And there is some changes in the time and service requirement for some of the ranks, particularly sergeant and lieutenant. And I believe that's the bulk of it. Blue, do you have anything you'd like to add?

Thank you, Council. I just want to highlight the talks that we went through with the city staff during the mean confer process. And I also want to give special thanks to Mr. Hebert, Mr. Thomas, and now Mayor Thompson. This council and this body has done a lot for public safety. And I know that the City Council will continue to do it throughout the continuing process because We are a civil service protected department and the commitment that we got, especially through this contract in the years past since COVID has really amplified your belief in public safety. So I want to commend you all for that. And to Mr. Iridia, thank you. I know you hit the ground running as soon as you got here and your impact with this contract and the processes and things and your vision of public safety is also helpful. And Tina has been there so the way Veronica so it helps us as an association to continue to provide the vision public safety we have because in our profession we have the the burdens of the past we have our current situation and we still try to maintain the vision for the future because public safety is paramount and we could not do it without council city staff and the officers who work the street every day so thank you thank you blue

I'd be happy to take any questions if you've got any questions.

So I'll open it up to the dais. We'll start down there. Mary, do you have any questions? Karen? Patrick?

I don't have much of a question, but I heard the mayor could beat your fitness test, so we may have to set that up.

Dude, we want to throw it down. I'm ready. Just whip out that rower.

It's going to be after lunch. Are you OK with that?

Yeah, I'm good. I'm skipping lunch, Blue. All right. Remember, I'm 59. All right, I get the adjustment. Really? We're good. Harry, any comments? Joe? Tommy? All right, we'll take that. I'll look for a motion. So moved. I have a first from Harry Thomas, and I have a second. But he beat you on that one, Karen. Tommy Hebert? Any public comment on this item? No public comment. We'll take a vote. All those in favor of item D say aye. Aye. Any opposed? If none opposed, item D passes 7-0. We'll move to E, discussion and possible action regarding the Destination Marketing Organization contract, presentation of the Destination Marketing Organization, presentation made by DMO Vice President, Mr. Jeremy Bartz.

Jonathan Flores, I just wanted to introduce Jeremy this morning. We'll also be asking for a direction on a contract for the next fiscal year as well. Sure.

Tom, do you want to read in section two into the record now so that we'll be taken care of?

We'll throw in section two. Consider approving a contract with the San Angelo DMO organization allocating hotel occupancy tax receipts to be used for eligible activities and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Presentation made by Finance Director Jonathan Flores. I'll go with Jeremy.

You're going to start with me?

I don't know. We're not going to rank who's better looking at this point. No, let's don't do that.

It would be common today. He holds my budget numbers, as do you, so let's not go there. Jeremy Bartz, Vice President, Destination Marketing Council, Mayor, City Manager, and staff, thank you for having us up here. I wanted to give you a quick year-to-date update on 2026. As you know, obviously our job is to bring in travelers and tourists to the city of San Angelo. I have a phenomenal team. uh with john agati and carter rowe as well out doing their jobs today that is exactly what they're doing they're trying to bring people into the city of san angelo to spend money in our hotels which ultimately creates what we call hot tax so let's just talk a little bit about our contract year to date uh visitor days so far throughout this year we're starting we started in a calendar year of 2026 but january through august We are seeing a little over 1,100,000 trips into the city of San Angelo, which results in about 2.4 million visitor days. This is all in your packet. You can see that. This is all generated by DataFi. So again, when we talk about things and we have people that have come up and asked you for allocations of hot funds, DataFi is essentially where we pull all this data and gives us the understanding of where people are coming from, what they're doing while they're here, how long they're staying, and approximately how much they spend. So during this time, they've stayed about two and a half days or 2.1 days, pretty average, kind of where we've been. Looking at visitors by day, this is one that I was very excited about. When you look at traditional, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday have been our traditional travel days. What we're seeing is that Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday are now starting to catch up. That is a positive sign of business travel. That is not a sign of traditional leisure travel. That is a sign of business travel. Business travelers within the hotels generally, not saying always, generally yield a larger average daily rate during that time frame. So when you're coming on travel for leisure, baseball tournaments, softball tournaments, soccer tournaments, things like that, you're looking for the discount rates. generally in business rate travel, it's going to be at the daily rate that the hotels have set. And so that helps us with Monday through Wednesday to get more people in here during that time frame. You can see the demographics. I won't go through all of that with you. But if you do have specific call outs, please feel free to reach out at any time. Trips by distance. This is one that, again, is something that we started measuring last year. We talk a lot about repeat. We talk a lot about the distance people travel to get here. You don't get to San Angelo by accident. We all know that. But when you look at the 50 to 150 mile radius, the trips by distance are 86%. That means that majority of people refer to San Angelo as town within that 50 to 100 mile radius or 150 mile radius. When you get outside of that, you start, you would expect to start seeing those numbers drop dramatically in terms of repeat visitors. When you get past that 250 mile radius, you would think that the majority of people would stop coming back multiple times, time over time over time. What we're seeing is that even when we get out to 1,000 miles away from the city of San Angelo, we're roughly at a 50-50 right now. It's 54% to 46% with repeat versus new or single one-time visits. That is a leading indicator to us that our marketing strategy with what we'll talk about here shortly is reaching those people and it's drawing them in and it's bringing them back. They come, they visit, they spend money, They leave and then they come back. This is not something that's just a one time flash in the pan. Bring your money. We only want your money. We want you to come back and experience the city again and again and again. And so that's one of the things that we utilize in our marketing tactics is to get out there and get those people back again. Again, when you look at the total distance of the drives, you'll see that obviously one day travel is going to encompass a good portion of it doesn't matter how far out they live. Excuse me. One day is typically the number. But as you get outside of that, you'll also see that people staying three, four, five, and six plus days is still a high percentage. Not compared to the one day, but it is a percentage that we can count on. Let's talk about sales and event bookings. We have current key performance indicators that we utilize through the DMO. Total sales this year, we have had 50 confirmed bookings, total sales. Sports bookings, we had originally set at six. We brought in 13, and that is in large part due to Carter and Jonna's work out in the communities away from San Angelo. Sales presentations to groups and associations, we've had 70. We originally had the KPIs set at about 35. The goal there was to get as many of those groups and associations into the city as we could. We've gone out and done sales presentations. And the one thing that we need to understand about that is that's a pipeline. When you're talking to groups and associations or even sports directors, you're talking about something that they may be looking at putting together in 2028 or 2029. This is not something where we go out right now, say to a group or association, come on into San Angelo and they come in in 2026. It's a pipeline. Trade shows the same way. John is actually at a trade show currently. Those are four. City-owned facilities and bookings. This was part of our KPIs that we really wanted to hone in on, is making sure that we're utilizing as many civic venues as possible. Primarily right now, the McNeese and Texas Bank Sports Complex lead that at 10. Services and assists, we've had a little over 18,000 people who have had service or assistance from the DMO with regard to their visit to San Angelo, and we booked a total of 30,000 room nights. Our goal on room nights was about 20,000. So we've already exceeded that 20,000 for this year, and we've set our KPIs for the next year at 5,000 more. So the goal is to continue to grow that. When you look at that in terms of revenue, obviously our goal is to generate as much revenue as possible in the hotel occupancy tax vein. With regard to our advertising and reach, obviously you can look through all these. I won't go through them for you, but I will tell you that looking at today's market, one of the things that we're seeing is that the vast majority of print media is ending up in doctor's offices or ending up on a coffee table, and they may or may not interact with that ad. we can put special qr codes in every single ad that we put out but at the end of the day it relies on that person to look at that ad click on a qr code and then decide somewhere in their subconscious to come to san angelo what we want to do is we want to reach them where they are we want to bring them in so we do that through targeted marketing it's not just through your traditional print we're also using digital marketing that hits those folks that are living outside of san angelo's radius So I'll talk a little bit more about that here shortly. But this is typically the viewership that we have or readership that we have in some of those traditional media. These are just some examples of some of the ads that we've run this year. One of the ones that was most popular is actually, ironically, Explore West Texas. And that is featuring Jason McClelland, who is a local boot maker or boot designer at ML Eddy's, but also an artist. And we've embraced the theme of cowboys and creatives as often as we possibly can in everything that we do. Whatever we put out, we want people to understand that the creativity in this community is top notch. We are the visual arts capital of Texas for a reason. We want to maintain that. And so we will continue to promote the arts in every way that we possibly can. But this was just a shot that was taken inside of a boot shop here in town with his art as he was essentially posing with it for us. That particular cover has gone all over the northwest, north and west part of Texas. And people have called us asking us about it. But what it also did is on the back cover, what most people didn't see was that SAMHSA had an ad on the back cover and they were able to get that at a discounted rate. So our presence in this market also allows for our partners to jump in as well. Targeted ad attribution report. What I wanted to mention here is this is what I was saying a little bit ago about Datify targeted ads. We are hitting people where they are. If you live in Dallas, Fort Worth, or if you live in San Antonio or Austin, Houston, wherever you might be, if you pull up the weather in San Angelo, it's going to pop up a banner on you. It will not show on mine nor any of yours because our area codes and zip codes are here. But anyone who lives outside of the city will get a targeted ad that pops up on their browser. They will then click on that ad generally or you do like a lot of us and we dismiss the ad, right? Or we skip through the ad. You do that on YouTube a lot. A lot of people do that. But when they click on that ad, we can then see whether or not they actually came to San Angelo through an attribution report. What I can tell you is that a little over 7,000 trips have been attributed to these particular ads just in 2026 alone. That is a big number. I know it doesn't sound like a big number, but it's a big number because no offense with this. Let me go back one. Whoops. Let's go back. Sorry, I think I just completely destroyed everything. Brian, what did I do wrong? I don't know. Let's go back to this. If they were to click on that QR code right there, that's great. That's wonderful. They're hitting our website. But at the end of the day, do we know whether they actually came in? We don't. When they go to this and they get that banner ad that pops up in front of them, we can actually see where they came from, how long they were here, and approximately where they visited while they were in town. So that is something that we're focusing a lot of effort on, putting a lot of extra funding into this, because no one here can see it. It's not because we don't want you to see it. It's because, no offense, you're not going to stay in a hotel and generate our heads and beds. So the very last thing I wanted to share with you was just one of the ads that we have put in with Texas Country Reporter this year. We partnered up with J.B. Sauceda, and I think it's kind of catchy. It's a 15-second video, but I wanted you to see this. And with that, I'll open it up for questions.

Jeremy, number one, I want to thank you for the position, the job you've been doing over at the DMO Chamber. You have a dedication there that's unparalleled, and we really appreciate that. Thank you. Because of you and your inputs, and I'm going to use this one to just make a quick announcement also, the Ports to Plains meeting in 2028, because of your efforts, will be coming to San Angelo, Texas. All right, and that will bring us several hundred people. There's a lot of efforts between you and them, and we'll make a more formal announcement on that later. But without your input and without the accessibility to access that specific ad and those things, to put it on right quick, I mean, it looked planned, and we just threw it together over a phone and a prayer, and it was absolutely wonderful. So with that, I'll open it up. Comments from the dais. I'll start down there with you, Mary.

Jeremy, I just really appreciate this. I'm really at a loss for words, but what you've been able to do in a relatively short time is impressive, to say the least. Thank you. But I'm glad you're at the helm of this, and I think there's nowhere to go but upwards, so keep it up. Thank you, Mary.

Keep doing your good work. Karen?

More gratitude. Can't ever get enough of that, right? So thank you so much for what you're doing. Very exciting to hear about Ports to Plains and we'll be watching.

I didn't want to say anything about it because I didn't know if it was official, but I like that. So thank you for that. Thank you for that. Whether it's official or not, it's living on YouTube in perpetuity.

I'm super excited. Yes.

Patrick.

On your sports booking, your trade shows, are those just the ones that y'all book specifically?

Yes, yes it is. That is not, I'm not telling you that there were not other tournaments or other associations or groups hosted. I'll give you an example. San Angelo Girls Fast Pitch. When they host a Midnight Madness tournament, Carter has such a great relationship with San Angelo Girls Fast Pitch Association that that is almost a given. She's immediately on the call. She's immediately on the task of getting that organized, getting the groups, getting the rooms, getting all the blocks done that way. Same thing goes for certain associations. So, for instance, Carter has worked with the Catholic Women's Association. We've had two of those we'll call it conventions here in San Angelo this year as a result of the relationship she built with the organizer. So those are just the specifics that we work with. Now obviously we know that there are more people coming into town. We're not responsible for 100% of that because quite frankly, no offense, If you don't know, you don't ask. And we don't know some of the groups and associations that are out there. So we're trying our best to hit those by going to Austin, by going to some of these local, I'll call it regional groups, and saying, would you be willing to bring that to San Angelo? So there are some, Patrick, that we, excuse me, Councilman, that we have not, I apologize, that we have not hit, and they've come anyway. And so we don't take credit for those. For instance, excuse me, San Angelo Stock Show and Rodeo. I can't claim that during February all those hotel rooms were booked by us, but what I can tell you is Texas Beef Expo that came in just about a month ago was because of us and in collaboration with San Angelo Stock Show and Rodeo. Cody reached out to me. We immediately jumped on the phone. This is what we can do. Let's get the blocks of rooms set up. Let's make sure that they have the best time that they possibly can while they're in San Angelo. That's something that we work through with relationships there.

Do we know on the room nights booked how that compares to how many are booked completely in San Angelo? Is that something we could... work backwards on hotel tax money?

Absolutely. I can give you all the stats you want from source strategies or Smith Travel Reports. We carry all that as well. That's something that I subscribe to. So I'm a little bit of a data nerd when it comes to stuff like that. I'll sit down and say, OK, where were we this year versus last? Where are we going? And give you a total number of bookings. I can give you the total number of bookings that are reported. But that's going to number, obviously, above ours.

What's the biggest hindrance to doubling some of these numbers?

To doubling the numbers could be staffing, could be exposure, could be, again, just the reach that we have and the competition that we're facing. Again, when you're talking to groups and associations, they may spend, as in the case for Ports to Plains, they were in Del Rio. The one that they did before was in maybe in Amarillo. Well, we're competing against those particular groups and those particular cities to bring those groups and associations in. So sometimes it truly is just a competition between us and other cities. I hate to use that, but that's ultimately what landed us the 2027 Judges Conference, the West Texas Judges Convention. We were standing in a room right outside while Amarillo was pitching theirs. And we walked in right behind them, and we didn't know which way that was going to go. Talk about a pressure moment. You're standing in the hallway while your competitor is presenting to the same people, and you have no idea what they said. You don't know what they offered them. You don't know if they said, hey, we'll give you $100,000 to come to Amarillo. We don't know that. But at the end of the day, we're in there competing against those other cities trying to bring those groups and associations in. So I think some of it is staffing. I think some of it is awareness. But I think a lot of it really boils down to just our ability to get out there and find them. Instead of playing catch, let's get out there and work.

There's nothing specific you've heard of? Well, like convention center, for instance, like, oh, it's just not big enough for our group.

It does limit. Facilities do limit. You know, when you talk about a group size, I mean, we're talking about the sports to planes. It could bring two to 300 people. Well, we can accommodate that here. That's our sweet spot. But if somebody were to say, we're going to bring in 1,000 people, and have a catered meal with all the tables all set, everything set up like it's supposed to be, plus we need a trade show floor space. Well, right now, we couldn't accommodate that. So we, a lot of the times, even for the situation that we had with the National High School Finals Rodeo, They asked us at one point to fill out an RFP. The first item on the box was 500 RV spots, full hookups, at the location where that is going to take place. Well, no offense, we don't have that. That's not that we couldn't accommodate. We just don't have 500 full hookup RV spots. So some of those that come through, we're not able to accommodate. Unity Dinner being one of them through Texas Travel Alliance. That was something that was, again, requested for an RFP. 275 rooms under one roof in a full-service hotel. I don't have it. There are facility limitations, but at the end of the day, we don't work on facility limitations. We tell them what we have, and we go after them with everything that we've got. Thank you. Thank you.

Harry?

I don't have a whole lot of questions. I know what he does. I had an opportunity to serve on that board more than once, so I want to say thanks. And by the way, Jeremy, you and I are good enough friends. You can call me Harry.

Thank you, Harry.

Councilman Self.

Doing a good job. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Hebert.

No. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Thanks. All right. How do I leave?

So we'll flip over right back here to Jonathan and let him go over the contract a little bit.

So right now, we have $1,049,000 set aside in the hot fund budget for the destination marketing contract. I believe right now our current plan is to enter into a half-year agreement for half of that amount, and then at that point, come back, review KPIs, and then enter into a second half of the agreement if the council feels amenable to that.

And the reason we're doing the half, Jonathan?

There has been some changes with the Chamber that we believe six months is good enough to kind of see where things are going, things are heading, and then make a decision after that as well.

Are you good with that decision?

Yes, sir.

Okay, and so if we go half of this, we're looking at $524,500? Yes, sir. Any questions for Jonathan?

Do we know what KPIs are set already for that six months?

Jeremy had a list of the KPIs. I believe only a couple of them were changing.

Let's see, room nights booked. We're going to 25,000 room nights for 2027. Sports tourism development, looking at securing eight sports tournaments as opposed to six with an average of 200 room nights per event. Sales presentations, make eight sales presentations to groups and associations, which right now, as you can see, we're at four. Our KPIs this year were at four. We decided to go ahead and double that. Trade show participation, again, four to six trade shows with booth presence. Again, just to kind of keep that as about the same as it is. Our number five was destination marketing campaigns, as we discussed. Instead of specifically sticking with the traditional print ads, going to digital and traditional print with our major publishers and partners, which would include J.B. Saucedo with TCR and some of those as well. develop 150 qualified tourism leads understanding that that is part of the pipeline it's not something that we can guarantee we can get all 150 groups in in 2027 but that that will set in the pipeline and be a part of the kpis that are measured civic event booking facilities book six events at civic events facilities or civic owned facilities which would include the river stage mcneese Texas Bank Sports Complex, Port Concho, just about any place that has a civic ownership. Association recruitment program, we will develop a targeted list, an association list in Austin. We've already begun that and we'll continue to do that with some of your larger key players within the state. Visitor services, service and assist, at least 20,000 guests annually. We're a little short of that right now. But again, I think some of that is just we're in September and we're closing out the year. We're not seeing as much travel in August and September as what we saw throughout the summer. Visitor services, like I mentioned, the 20,000 were good there. And then visitor economic impact. Again, I think you all heard when Maddie Phillips was here what total travel spending is to the city of San Angelo. And when we talk about a $320 million total direct travel spending that comes directly from the comptroller's office. I didn't make that up. That comes directly from the comptroller's office in 2025. When we look at that, that is a significant amount of revenue brought into the city. It's not just to the city itself. It's to all of our partners. It's to our hotels. It's to our restaurants. It's to our stores. and to all of our small businesses as well here in town. So I think that when you look at that and you look at the overall impact, 15 million is pretty low. We've got it set at an economic impact of 15 million. I don't guarantee that I can get that in hot taxes, okay? Thank you all for your positive words. I appreciate you thinking I'm pretty good at this, but I'm not that good. $15 million is a lot to ask for with where we are currently. So we'll continue to generate that much in visitor spending overall without any issues there.

Could you email us those KPIs? Absolutely. Thank you. You're welcome.

Karen, any questions? Mary?

No.

Any additional? Harry? No. All right. So at this point, we'll look for a motion.

So moved. Second.

I have a first from Harry Thomas. If y'all only knew the battle to get the number two up here. And a second from Patrick Keeley. Is there any public comment on this item, Heather? We'll look to approve as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? With no opposition, item G passes 7-0. I want to call an audible here and see if we can move item J up next because that is one there's considerable amount of people here. Legal, are you good with that? Brian, I don't know if you have to pump up a different presentation to go to skip to J. First reading in public hearing for the following cases, Z26-16, a request for a zoning change from the light manufacturing zoning to the district general commercial zoning district, and CP26-03, a comprehensive plan amendment from industrial to commercial on a four-acre track located at 4239 South Chadburn. Presentation made by Planning and Development Service Director, Erin Vinoy.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council, City Manager, Erin Vinoy, Director of Planning Development Services. I know they're working on getting the presentation up in the back, and so I'm going to bring up the easel that has our 1954 zoning map that is relevant to this case. And we'll actually show that in just a moment and have everybody have the opportunity to take a look at that to see where that is actually located on the 1954 zoning map.

Is that paper from 1954? It could be. It sure looks it.

I'm trying to get Bob to make it a relic for the museum.

He'll want some funds for that.

I'm not sure that they'll be able to hear me, but I'll speak very, very loudly. So this is from 1954. That's when zoning started with the city of San Angelo. Obviously, you see our city core here in the middle. Then you go south, you see Chadford that comes and curves around here.

Aaron, move that mic to you. Just don't worry if somebody's watching.

Okay, here we go. I'm pretty loud when I need to be. Agreed. So again, we have city center here. As we know, Chadburn comes through the middle, comes down. Cristobal Road, of course, bisects that. You have all these nice colors. Even back there in 54, we had colors, for those of you that didn't know that. But we did have colors. This area right here, you notice all the corners are in a red hatched area. If you go up to what that means, it's actually manufacturing one light manufacturing that is transposed all the way through to 1926 that this area around this area all the way, including this property that's here at the very end, has shown to be light manufacturing. So today we'll demonstrate why many of these properties that were light manufacturing in 1954 have changed. And that's what we'll demonstrate today of why we're moving forward with this recommendation and with the Planning Commission's recommendation. So I'll leave that there while we set the mic. And we'll get started. So this is a property at 4239 South Chabron Street. It isn't in the in the Glenmore neighborhood. District one, Mr. Tommy Hebert. The vision plan is industrial. It is a four acre tract that's roughly 200 feet wide by 900 feet deep. The request is a comprehensive plan amendment from industrial to commercial and request for a zone change from light manufacturing to general commercial. We did send out our notices. We had 11 properties within this area. We did send them out. We did get six in opposition, and we did get an emailed packet opposition on late Friday. But of the properties that are surrounding, that's more than the 20% of the properties around. And therefore, under our local ordinance, it must meet a supermajority vote. So a three-quarters vote of the sitting council to approve this, no matter what the Planning Commission's recommendation was. So at that point, at the end of this, we'll talk about that again, but that would mean at least a 6-1 vote for approval for it to move forward. Here's our zoning. So on our left side, our subject property is right there outlined in the red. If you look directly to the east, we have a property that is CGCH. CGCH is a leftover zoning from before our current zoning ordinance. Our current zoning ordinance is in from 2000. In 2000 and in 2003 and in 2008, it has been recommended to the city council that all of those CGCHs go away and they either go to a general commercial or a heavy commercial. This property has not had any changes on it that has dictated it to go for a zone change at this time. But as you can see, it could be general commercial. Currently, that property has commercial property up here at the front. A residential property there, a residential property there, and a residential property there. Not two there. It double clicked my arrows. So there's only three residential properties on that side, and then a commercial entity up here at the front. You could argue that that commercial entity could be heavy commercial from time to time. Currently, we would classify it under our current ordinance as a general commercial activity. To the right of that is general commercial. and in a vacant lot as of right now. And we have some wider views. If you look at our vision plan over here, this tan color is industrial. In 2003, this area was actually said to the south of this line right here would be industrial. The recommendation from the consultants north of that line fronting Chadburn would be general commercial and commercial in nature. And we have that evidence right here from our comprehensive plan that shows that map that was produced. back then that you can see the base in blue and right below it to the south is a light pink which actually is the general commercial if you looked at the at the scales or at the legend and below that the gray on that one is the actual industrial. Here's some pictures of the site you can see here to the left is east to the right is west This is looking east down South Chadburn. You can see the base there to the left. You can see the commercial structure directly adjacent. Here is looking back towards town, heading back west. You can see the fire station. You can see that over here is a company fuel area that's probably heavy commercial. These are two automotive facilities that are heavy commercial in nature because you don't stay with your vehicles. You drop your vehicle off and leave. And so that kind of is the difference between an oil change thing or something that would be automotive that falls in the heavy commercial. And then further down, there are some other entities as well that are probably more of the heavy commercial. There is one that we would believe is right about a light manufacturing designation. All of this area There's a road right there called Edwood. All of that area right now is zoned light manufacturing. So again, here's just that overview, that bigger picture view. So you can see some areas. Obviously, you see Cristobal Road. You see Chadburn that comes in and curves around. This is an area that has been designated, particularly right to that boundary, as light manufacturing. The question is, has things changed in this area that is pushing towards manufacturing or other activities? I would say if you look from here south, the answer would be yes. If you look in this area, including this housing that was not there in 1954, I would say no, it is moving differently. So examples, this property right here in 2018, was industrial comprehensive plan, light manufacturing rezoning. It came forward with a comprehensive plan amendment to neighborhood center, much lower than what we're asking for today, as well as going from light manufacturing to RM1. That came through with a different director, different staff team, came right through, went to Planning Commission, was recommended for approval, came to this group here, and was also recommended approval, and has been functioning as the Glen Park Apartments ever since then. It was $80,000 worth of valuation before it developed. Now it's $2.9 million worth of valuation for that apartment complex. Across the road, light manufacturing along this area. It had a neighborhood, it actually had a commercial industrial Let me rephrase that. Along Edgewood, it had a commercial vision plan. It came forward in 2023 to do a comprehensive plan amendment to neighborhood and a rezoning from light manufacturing to RM1 at the time. Again, went through planning commission, went through the notice process, came to the city council, and moved forward with the change there. We also know that fire stations, they fit just about everywhere, but it's actually zoned light manufacturing. In your mind, you'd say, well, what are they manufacturing? Fire stations do a good job of going and taking care of areas that are in light manufacturing and neighborhoods and commercial areas and are perfectly adjacent to a good thoroughfare. What about the stripes on the corner? It's zoning as light manufacturing. Stripes is not a light manufacturing or a heavy commercial. It's a general commercial use. You see two areas of storage buildings. This area down here is zoned commercial. This one here is zoned light manufacturing. We also have a barber shop down here that's zoned general commercial. So I again would argue this area is turning more commercial and medium to high density residential potentially to support the base, this neighborhood, and improve things here to where we have an industrial corridor here. And maybe people go and work there and they don't have to drive as far. So that's just kind of the high view, the overview of those areas. Again, you can see where our industrial, which is this tan area or gray area, if you will, it does extend out into the ETJ. So you see here to the east, you have commercial. To the further past the intersection of Cristobal Road, you have commercial. You have neighborhood commercial. And across the street is now actually commercial for the vision plan. Here's the zoning. Again, we have zoning is a little bit different. The areas that do not have a color, that is where ETJ is. That is where a city limit starts. So if you're looking at this property right here, let me try that one more time. That last blue property, you've got ranch and estate to the south of you. You've got the base that is zoned RS1. You've got RS3 there. You have neighborhood commercial, or not, excuse me, not neighborhood commercial, general commercial, heavy commercial, then general commercial, and one other general commercial, heavy commercial there, and then ranch and estate. And so moving this into a different direction, we do not believe that it has anything that is we're picking this one out and saying we're just going to change that. We know that has happened here. We know that has happened here. And those are not true. What some people may say, spot zoning, that is evaluating your plan, going through your plan and seeing what your plan says that you should move towards for the future. And what does your market say you need? So we'll get to those points in just a moment. This is, again, just a little bit closer in view so you can kind of see the property lines a little bit better. So we go through our rationale on every rezoning and every comprehensive plan amendment. Is it compatible with our comprehensive plan from 2003? And so directly from our comprehensive plan, each neighborhood has a section. This is the Goodfellow and the Glenmore Southeast Community Area, what it is that they needed back in 2003. Encourage and maintain quality commercial uses around Goodfellow Air Force Base, which is why they recommended at the time that corridor along South Chadbourne should be commercial oriented. Re-examine current industrial zoning classifications. Infill development, too many vacant lots. They were talking about infill back in 2003, and this is infill area that is within our city limits. Dilapidated homes need strong code enforcement. Shape and land area of land uses, designations, and conceptual and not intended are also conceptual and not intended to be exact design criteria for individual properties. So your comprehensive plan is a conceptual plan. It does not lock a 4-acre, a 10-acre, a 50-acre piece of land into a specific thing. It is conceptual and we have to grow with what is our market happening at the time. A comp plan is a living document and must change and must update as living conditions in the city change. Both of those last two statements are not my statements. Those are within our comprehensive plan word for word that was adopted by our city council and said this must be a living document and it must change and update as councils see fit. Rationale for the zoning from light manufacturer to commercial. Planners are always trying to protect neighbors, neighborhoods, and things from heavy industrial, heavy commercial items. The subject property has had four homes built probably a long time ago, but at least we know three were built in the 80s. It's surrounded by four of those homes today and various undeveloped and developed commercial to heavy commercial land uses around. New low-rise multifamily has been developed along Christova Road and South Chadbourne and Edgewood Street. So looking at those things, how do we have a compatible rezoning if someone comes to us and says, we want to rezone this property? and they want to do something. We look at what's existing and what does the future predict. And so that is another reason why we're looking at this and saying if we can bring that zoning down from a higher classification of light manufacturing to something that's more reasonable, like general commercial in this case, then it makes sense for us to move that forward and looking at our comprehensive plan of what this area should be. This area supports small-scale commercial development instead of light manufacturing on a four-acre tract. It is hard to do manufacturing on a four-acre tract. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's very difficult. And the size constraints of this lot being 200 foot by 900 foot, roughly, makes it difficult because it's not a wide frontage. It's not a wide lot. It actually tapers down towards the south end. And so it makes it a little more difficult to, all right, what can we really do in our light manufacturing section that makes sense here? To our knowledge, only one property, 4005 South Chadburn. It's a construction company, but they do construction and modification of intermodal containers into other uses besides storage. So they make them into offices or break rooms or things, and people can buy them and take them places and stuff. And so that's kind of a light manufacturing. They're going and cutting into something and making something and sending out a product. The remaining properties that we see with today's, looking at them, what they are today, they fall within the heavy commercial and general commercial zoning districts, which none of that really is those zoning districts, but they haven't had a reason to come and check in with us. They haven't had a change of occupancy. In fact, we checked, they haven't had, most of those properties haven't had a change of occupancy since the late 80s, which predates our current zoning ordinance, which means there's no reason for them to come forward with a zone change. But that does not mean the area is not moving towards light manufacturing. It actually means the opposite. It's staying what it was, which was heavy commercial, general commercial, and now we're continuing to move more towards the general commercial area. Property directly to the east is CGCH with three houses, and directly behind it is that ranch and estate. So is there a community need? SO THEN 2003 POINTED OUT THE ISSUES OF LACK OF GROCERY STORES, DRUG STORES, QUALITY OF OFF-BASE HOUSING AND APPEARANCE OF PROPERTIES IN THE GLENMORE-GOODFELLOW AREA. WHAT IS IT THAT THE CITY HAS DONE ZONING-WISE TO MOVE THAT NEEDLE IN THE DIRECTION TO GET MORE AND MORE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AREAS better housing in those areas. We've done a few things. We did go and rezone the corner property at Chadburn and and Cristobal Road. We did go and rezone the properties over at Edgewood and Cristobal or not Cristobal but Chadburn. That is why this makes sense to us is we're continuing that trend. The whole community benefits when current vacant properties are developed and We believe this is going to be a catalyst area to begin adopting, adapting to the community change in support of Goodfellow Air Force Base and the Glenmore neighborhood. Once the property goes through the plat process, there's infrastructure items that will be triggered. One of them is wastewater that's across the street in South Chadman over by the Edgemont. They intend to bring that wastewater to the south side and actually make it usable for multiple properties and other properties to the east or west could connect into that wastewater. So that is a public good that's happening for multiple properties along that area. ALSO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE HAVE ALSO TALKED WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THROUGH THEIR PLAT PROCESS, WE'LL BE SEEKING A DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT PROPERTY SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A BETTER CONNECTION SO IF CHADBURN IS EVER SHUT DOWN FOR SOME MAJOR REASON THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE BASE OR WHATEVER THE REASON, WE STILL HAVE CIRCULATION AROUND. WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY EAST-WEST ROADS TO THE SOUTH OF THERE BETWEEN CHRISTOVA ROAD AND SOUTH CHADBURN THAT CURVES AND GOES SOUTH. WE HAVE TO START PROJECTING SOME OF THOSE AT SOME POINT. SO AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING COMES THROUGH HERE THAT ACTUALLY MAKES A CONNECTION, AND IF THIS AREA IS SHUT OFF FOR WHATEVER REASON, SECURITY REASONS FOR CHADBURN, MAJOR ITEMS ARE BEING DELIVERED AND THAT'S SHUT OFF, WELL, WE NEED A RELIEVER ROUTE TO COME THROUGH. AND SO THAT'S WHY LOOKING AT THAT SOUTHERN END MAKES SENSE, AND THAT IS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. With that, we have brought this forward from Planning Commission. That was on August the 17th. They did make a recommendation of approval of 6-0 at that time. Staff also made the recommendation of the comprehensive plan change from industrial to commercial. and the rezoning from light manufacturing to general commercial. Again, I will remind you that due to the 20% of landowners in opposition, a supermajority vote is needed by this city council to move it to an approved place. With that, Mayor, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Well, this one got a lot of questions. Let's start with questions from the dais, and we'll probably take public comment before we actually make a motion. I do think we've seen a lot of demand for housing, especially in the proximity of Goodfellow. That one needs to make a choice. As we sit down there and look at it, I'm curious as the opposition against the zoning, As it's going, I think you'd need to realize that some of the houses there are sitting in commercial and they were, they're not, it's not RS1. I think we've got, doesn't, isn't the CSA concrete plant just south of this too?

Yes, there is. There is a concrete plant further south along Cristobal Road.

I'm not sure. There's lots of things, but I think you've answered a lot of the questions. And so I'm just going to kick it up to the dice and I'm going to start with Tommy. It's in his district and we'll rotate around and ask our questions and we'll go to public comment. Mr. Hebert.

How much time do I have?

All day.

Okay. We may be here.

As long as you need.

My first question is the road, Chadford Street is under TxDOT. purview, correct? That is correct. So, with that in mind, do they have any input with respect to... I've been out there three times, most recently yesterday afternoon, to look at this. Has TxDOT had any comment yet about ingress or egress to this particular site?

Well, this particular applicant, they did come to us for a pre-development meeting. In our pre-development meeting, we invite our TxDOT representatives any time that they're associated with a roadway of theirs. They did come forward. They did not make a positive or negative comment, so they had no comment at all at that time. That was even with them discussing the concept and it being basically a single point of access from that property out to Chadbourne and the amount of homes that potentially could be back there, or if it turns into a commercial entity, what that would look like. Currently, we do not have any comments for or against by TxDOT on this property.

So I think you may have answered the next question. It appears at this juncture without a site plan, there's going to be one ingress, egress, same place. We're not talking about one egress only, one ingress only.

That is correct, and part of that is dictated by the TxDOT's egress management system. Again, their property is only 200 feet. They probably can't get two driveways within 200 feet based on the potential speed that's on Chadburn. However, we do have, through the conditional use process for this property, we do have an adopted concept plan that shows one drive access. That doesn't enter into this rezoning, but that is dictated by our conditional use that was approved by Planning Commission for this site.

Okay. All right. Thanks. And then quickly on that, with ingress, egress, specifically right now, has fire department made any comment with respect to the public safety aspect of the potential ingress, egress future?

Yes, they have. They have looked at that and they have given here's what our ordinances are and what we would accept in the future for a plat, if a plat was to come forward, or if they were to have a true site plan for structures to be built. So they have done that.

Okay. You alluded to this, but I just want to make sure I heard it accurately. That is a deep lot. You said 900 feet approximately.

Yes, sir.

And narrow 200 feet across. I guess this is an opinion question, your opinion. Would that be, and again, I believe you stated this earlier, but that could likely be the limiting factor on development of a true light manufacturing entity going there just because of the constraint on that.

Yes, sir. When you start looking at building codes, while zoning may allow you a zero foot setback at the property line, the building code is not going to allow you to do that unless you add additional cost to your structure to fire rate it. When you're looking at real light manufacturing and trying to find places where Larger vehicles can come in, turn around, make that radius and things like that. You just run out of usable space when you have to have a drive aisle, 100-foot diameter turnaround somewhere. You just start losing usable space. Plus, we have within our ordinances, you can't be more than 750 feet past a cul-de-sac without another way out. And so when you start getting past that depth, then you start having challenges with this size of a lot.

Again, I think you alluded to this, but just for clarification, for my clarification, what light manufacturing have you seen in the area that would, I'll say, lend credence to the position that this needs to remain light manufacturing?

Well, currently, this property right here would be the one that I would say that's functioning in some light manufacturing capacity. That is a construction company. They do general construction, but they also do modifications of intermodal containers just as probably, I wouldn't say a side business, but that is part of their business. And so that would say, okay, well, that's a little bit of manufacturing there. When you really look at what's manufacturing, and I'm going to turn that off, and I may go back So we can get a little clearer slide. So you have SMC Global is there. You have the windmill facility is there. You have a herbicide product there. You have, let's see, what else do we have down here? We have, again, the concrete batch plant is further south. You have those that are manufacturing truck bed bodies. I believe that that is that facility right there. Those areas that are going to the south, going down Cristobal Road, where the state has invested a significant amount of money so that you can go north and south and get to places, makes a lot of sense. Outside the city, there's a Caliche pit, but that's outside the city that has no bearing on what we're trying to decide. And then over here, we have a couple of other facilities that are doing light manufacturing. Nobody's doing heavy manufacturing right now. That is all further south or projected to be further south, but this is light manufacturing. So again, if you look at that horizontal that goes there, that's a natural property line. That's really not happening except for maybe one position there along that entire frontage.

So the industrial or heavier commercial development, again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it's taking place on the old Cristobal Road there where TxDOT is investing millions there.

Yes, and the city has invested a lot as well. We have really good infrastructure, water, sewer, along this, I shouldn't say sewer, excuse me, but water lines that have been upgraded along with that Cristobal Road project. as well as water lines that come down dan hanks and circle back through that area and so water capacity for an industry is better along cristova road than along chadburn per se have we had any input at all i'm going to guess the answer is no to this but have we had any input at all from

from anybody on Goodfellow with respect to this is proposed to be housing. Have we had any input whatsoever from Goodfellow folks that of any sort?

I'm going to give you a short answer and then a long answer. The short answer on this specific project, I have not heard of any anyone from Goodfellow. However, what I will say is in 2019 and 2024, we did a housing study and they engaged Goodfellow significantly about that housing study. And if you look back at 20 2003, our comprehensive plan engaged with Goodfellow both times that says we need quality housing for Goodfellow Air Force Base, close to Goodfellow Air Force Base, not necessarily across town. We need to go through and we need to go through and make sure our houses are not dilapidated. We need to make sure that our vacant lands are being utilized properly. And that's what our housing study from 2019 and 2024 said, as well as our comprehensive plan in 2003.

Okay, so no real direct comment at this juncture from Goodfellow. No. And has... Have we had... I know there'll be some public concerns, but have we had any kind of traffic study, any kind of traffic comment? Again, I'm sure there'll be some public comment on this, but with respect to the traffic on Chadburn... whatsoever being able to handle if we're talking putting this amount of housing in this area?

That's a great question, and I'm actually glad I'm on this slide. So if you look at this housing area right here, you've got one way out here. the south you've got one major road that goes here and a couple of other minor roads if you start looking at the volume of those houses that primarily come back and work at goodfellow adding in this case what our conditional use is limited to is 40 houses this one beats that the volume of traffic every single day whether you come on multiple exits or one exit And Cadburn is an arterial classified road. It is designed to handle heavy volume of traffic. Now, are they going to have challenges at 7 o'clock in the morning and 5 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the afternoon? Particularly after, you know, if there's an upgrade to the entrance to Goodfellow, potentially. But I think we would say that around any school. We would say that around any one of our steel processing sites that dumped out onto maybe a local street as opposed to a four-lane road. We would say that even around ASU areas that there are significant sporting events that happen. And we're talking about 40 here. I think we're going to be okay. Now, TxDOT may require a traffic study. That's in their purview. We on the city side do not have that in our ordinances, and we cannot require that based on the type of development that may come forward. But we also feel very strongly, and our city engineer and our operations teams have looked at it and said, well, that's TxDOT purview, but we don't think it's going to be a major issue at this time.

You used the word school just then in a comment you made, which just made this question pop into my mind. Goodfellow Air Force Base, we've labeled it Goodfellow Air Force Base. That's the name. What actually... I'm going to say from a zoning standpoint, what actually is that land there that we call Goodfellow Air Force Base? What do they do there?

Well, in the comprehensive plan, they are considered an institution or campus, if you will. That's what ours, which oversees school district and ASU and used to kind of oversee the fairgrounds and things like that, oversees some of our large facility facilities. That's kind of what that vision plan or that comprehensive plan is. In our current zoning ordinance, we do not have anything that really lumps those into where they should be. While currently they're zoned RS1, we know that doesn't really encompass what they do, but they're going to be more of a heavy commercial, just like we have with some of our school properties, just because of the volume of traffic that can come from a commercial entity. Now, fortunately for Goodfellow, they're a federal installation and they own the property, and so our zoning ordinance does not dictate anything to them.

So what do we normally see then in terms of development either in other communities or, you know, schools, whatever? What kind of development do we usually see around?

Well, I would take Abilene for an example around Dyess Air Force Base. They have heavily invested in housing around their Air Force Base so that they can continue to get new missions at Dyess Air Force Base so that they have, hey, we have great housing for you to add missions to our installation here. I think we need to do something very similar for Goodfellow Air Force Base is to look at housing and general commercial activities that particularly those members that come and stay on Goodfellow Air Force Base. They have no idea what San Angelo can offer. They're having to go and explore. Maybe they have a way to just come and do something in a small way just on South Chadburn and then they slowly start to explore the rest of our community. But I would say if you talk to anybody in military affairs, they say you need amenities close to your base, whatever it is. And I think that is what we're moving towards along the South Chadburn Corridor.

So you mentioned earlier that I think you used the pronoun they. Is they are going to bring sewer across Chadburn? Is they the potential developer builder of these suggested houses? Is that the they that's going to bring the sewer across? The city's not... That is correct. That would be a developer responsibility. Okay. And water is already available. That is correct. Okay.

All right.

Mayor, right now that I'll let other folks up here ask questions.

Let us go down this one and we'll come back to you, Tommy, towards the end.

Joe, if you got anything. Do people live on Goodfellow Forest Base? Yes. Okay. Is there a school there?

Glenmore is adjacent. I don't think there's an actual school there. There might be a daycare on base, but I'm not sure.

Child Development Center. Yeah. Yeah. I believe it's right across the street. It's very possible. What's allowed in ranching in a state?

Ranching estate is basically large lot residential and so very similar to the South here. Obviously you can do farming. You can do those things. You can do it out some outdoor storage ranching, but usually it is large lot development of a single house and that could be one acre or multiple acres of land.

Thank you.

Harry. Patrick?

So with this, we're actually just looking at the zoning and the comprehensive plan.

That is correct.

So is the conditional use condition of that passing?

No.

It is not. So where does that come into play on what we're doing here today on these?

It does not come into play for what we're doing today. The only thing I will mention is that a conditional use since 2003 for household living has been allowed in all zoning districts either by right or conditional use. So whether you're heavy manufacturing, CGCH, CBD, wherever, it shows that it's either allowed or needs a conditional use. And so they went through the process for the current zoning of light manufacturing to obtain a conditional use for household living at the last planning commission. But that does not impact the zoning, the comprehensive plan and the zoning decision today.

So that can go through either way?

Yes, sir.

I mean, this kind of goes back to what we already talked about a lot. This adds quite a bit to the tax rolls in a spot that we have not received much in 20, 30, 40 years.

I think that's certainly a potential if it does develop forward.

If something develops, yeah. Yes, sir. That's the underlying part of this is to make sure it can develop into something because it obviously hasn't been developed as is. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.

Ms. Smith?

Okay. Erin, would you call this a subdivision?

No, not under the state law or our ordinances. This is not a subdivision at this time.

Because I think it's true that direct access to a public road is a legal requirement if you call it a subdivision. Is that correct? That is correct. And you've given us an opinion that there may be a solution to the limited ingress and egress contingent upon what the developer does. Also true?

Yes, I believe that is true.

When a zoning change is requested, doesn't that allow us to request a site plan for the development?

Not on a simple zone change. If it is something like a conditional use, special use, or a planned development, a concept plan can be or is actually part of the application. And so, but for a zone change, we, one, we cannot hold them to whatever the concept plan is, and two, we cannot ask for them. They can voluntarily provide one, but we cannot ask for one under, really under the state laws, because you're just trying to decide is that, because they may not know their exact use yet. They just know that it falls in the bucket of general commercial.

Well, you know I'd like to see one, but... If the zone change were to be approved, will that allow STRs by right?

If a household living came into a general commercial area, the answer is yes. Short-term rentals would be allowed by right.

Regarding the comment or the question that Patrick brought forward about the benefit to our tax base, is it worth considering that while if housing was allowed to be built in that long, narrow strip of land, yes, we would get a positive impact on our tax base to homeowners. If it remains or does not change or is not built out in homes, We have been repeatedly told over the last several weeks how deficient our tax base is in terms of commercial property. Are we potentially losing an opportunity that might be right around the corner as we go forward with our comp plan, which will launch in a month? I mean, that's a lot of things to link together, but... Well, it's a very good question. Are we ahead of ourselves, maybe?

I have a couple of examples that I had printed out for myself. So, in Paul Ann, at 9.50, Gordon is a dollar general. It's on a two-acre, just slightly less than two-acre piece of property. This is a four-acre piece of property. Both of them would fit the general commercial zoning designation. So in 2021, before that lot built on Gordon, it brought in total taxes, so school, county, and city, of $1,223. Okay. This one currently is bringing in, make sure I get you the right number, total taxes, $1,868. Now, that development started in 2021 and started developing. So in 2022, the Dollar General went to $10,600. In 2024, it was $10,200. In 25, it was $12,500. And in 26, $15,000. So over a five-year period, it was $59,464 for that property at 950 Gordon. Now, if you also compare this multifamily that is actually 4.5 acres, so slightly larger, AND THAT'S AT THE CORNER THERE. SO IT STARTED OUT AS A VALUATION OF $5,500 AND WAS STARTING TO BE DEVELOPED AT THAT TIME. Next year was $39,800. Next year was $40,000. Next year was $42,800. $53,729. And then in 2026, it was $64,474 for a total of $247,000 in that five-year period. That currently has a valuation of $2.9 million. The Dollar General has a rough valuation of about $450,000. If we were to run through numbers on that property, it would be hard to know, depending on if it's commercial or residential. I know the applicants are here. They may be able to speak to that more confidently than what I could as speculating what those values might be for their property.

We had a controversial case in District 6 not too long ago regarding STRs by right. I'm assuming that should this go forward, we can put the same condition on approval, potential approval?

It would not be on a rezoning. You cannot condition a rezoning.

Okay.

It would have been on the conditional use for household living that the Planning Commission has already ruled on. So, no. And they have not put that condition on there.

I would just caution council that we shouldn't really be deliberating the conditional use at this point because that will come later. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. That's it from me for now. Thank you.

Ms. Coffey?

Thanks, Erin. Refresh my memory what Tommy was saying about the ingress and egress on that. Is that going to fall on the developer or the city since now it would have, you know, in the city limits got water and sewer to put an additional exit or entrance in there?

That would be on the developer, and they would be negotiating that or discussing that with TxDOT and TxDOT's rules on Chadburn Street. And they are, I know they've already engaged in those conversations, and they were also, TxDOT was invited to our pre-development meeting, so they're aware of the potential of this development.

And what Karen was saying, so by right, those could be SDRs? Yes. But before that would happen, it would have to come before planning and council.

Today we're talking about going from light manufacturing to general commercial. Is that appropriate?

Typical fashion, I'm getting ahead of my skis. Okay. Thank you, though. I don't have any more questions. Thanks, Erin.

Heather, how many public comment people do we have on this one? Seven. Eight. Eight. Let's go ahead and start public comment. If nobody on the dial subjects to that, I'd like to go ahead and hear public comment. Legal, are you good?

Jim Raymond.

Jim.

Good morning, Mayor, council members. My name is Jim Raymond. I own a company that has property directly adjacent to the subject that we're talking about today and also representing property owners around that property. We have appealed the conditional use that the City Planning Commission has approved. Probably hear that in next month. To approve the proposed request, if y'all don't mind, I'm going to read this so I can stay within my three minutes. But to approve them, they must meet the test in Section 213.E.4 of the San Angelo Zoning Ordinance. And if approved, your decision must meet the legal requirements of the state. And I guess that goes without saying. Let's talk about the legality of it for just a minute. It cannot be considered spot zoning. And I know Erin doesn't think it is, but Supreme Court case rule 1981 in Tippett v. City of Pharr, that spot zoning is a preferential treatment. Where a city adopts a long-range master or zoning plan, the approved plan should be respected and not altered to fit the special benefit of the landowner. Also, municipal actions are forbidden that disregard the pre-established ordinance. and long-range plans that have been adopted by such ordinance. In other words, spot zoning doesn't apply just to zoning, but it also applies to the comprehensive or long-range master plan. Your approval of the request, if you're given, appears to meet the test for spot zoning as you're making one four-acre parcel, as you saw on the map, residential. That is the ultimate goal of this. And everything around it, which is 1,000 acres, would still be industrial. Next, we believe the proposed comprehensive plan change and the zone change do not comply with a majority of the tests that are required in your zoning ordinance. First, changing a single property to commercial to allow residential goes against the industrial section of the plan. And I know we're talking about changing that plan, but industrial areas are dedicated to support the local businesses that furnish jobs that are critical to the local economy. And it provides a buffer to retail and residential. Second, rezoning a single property from land manufacturing to general commercial is inconsistent with the zoning pattern that surrounds it, and we'll talk more about that. Third, the residential housing is incompatible within an industrial area and that has heavy commercial use, which, again, you saw from the map. Fourth trend, the area is changing towards more industrial. There have been four new businesses that have been built out on that area in the last 10 years. that have been zero residential built out there in the last 40 years. So we do not see a trend.

So we hit the time.

Yes, we did. We've hit the time, sir. OK. Thank you.

No, thank you, Jim.

Ginger Moore?

Ginger?

I've listened for several hours now. My property is adjacent. They're hoping that my 20 acres will turn into residential. My goats' fence is right next to where they're putting their property, so my goats can look at them. They're going to build a stone wall all the way around it. There's going to be one exit onto Chadburn, which I've been there 40 years, so I know what kind of line those military make at 730 in the morning. They're lined up to get in the gate. These people coming out are going to be in 40 duplexes. So there's going to be 80 cars or vehicles, if not more, coming out that gate at 730 in the morning. are trying to get back in there at 4.30 or whenever they get off work. And most of them are going to try and turn left. So can you imagine crossing four lanes, trying to do that at 7.30 in the morning? Plus, if it's all rock and that entrance is blocked, that could very well be a safety issue. I cannot believe that I would buy something. And the people that will rent these, we don't know who they are. They could be military. They could be data center workers. They could be hospital workers. We don't know who's going to rent those. So we don't know that they're going to go right to the... turn right and go into the gate. By the way, the Air Force has fire and intel out there, and that has been there at least for 80 years, if not more. So, I mean, the military will use maybe some of the duplexes, but I think it's for other purposes. and i'm not sure and also this gentleman that has this land was trying to get industrial in there he was trying to sell it for three hundred thousand dollars and nobody would buy it so he decided to go another route and put houses in there and if you go around there there's a cleachy pit in back of my my fence and that cleachy pit has those cleachy trucks coming out then that business that's next to ruby lane which by the way is a private road and needs It needs resurfacing. So when you all get the money, please resurface my road. Unless you know where to add that money changer. Yeah, yeah. But anyway, if you go out there, and there's a business right there to the right as you go on to the Tadburn, that business has 15 trucks in there that come out there. And if they have a family, they actually want to put a family there. There is no land if there's there's roads in there. Do you know how large four acres is? I have two acres around my house. This four acres is not big enough for a family. And if they have children, somebody is going to get hit. And I was. Oh, and the other thing is, please go to the meetings that you hold for the planning meeting and the one before that. I know some of you have attended. But basically, we need to look hard at the members of those boards, economic development and planning boards. Thank you.

Thank you, Ginger.

Steve Eustace.

Good morning, Mayor, Council. I'm Steve Eustace. I'm the principal broker with Steve Eustace Company Realtors, Commercial Investment Properties at 1207 South Abe. I've been in the commercial real estate business for over 50 years and have probably appeared before city councils over a hundred times on zoning issues. And it never gets easier to stand up here and argue with friends. Friends serving on this council, friends serving on the planning commission, the proponents, everybody. You know, it just doesn't feel good, but that's the way life is. We all just kind of do what our job requires us to do, and we still remain friends. I want to tell you, I've been a realtor for this whole time, and the preamble to the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics addresses protection of private property rights. I'm a member of the commercial division of the National Association, and we do support proper zoning. But we are just as committed to protecting commercial property rights as residential owners are in protecting their rights. This is an industrial district, and owners and investors of the properties in this area bought their properties knowing the uses that were allowed. Under ML, they don't want a residential development lessening the value of their property and the possibility of complaints from residents about noise, late night work, or other issues that could arise from living next door to an industrial user. And I'm not sure why anyone would want to build a home in an industrial area. Will the residents be allowed to protest an expansion of the business in their district? I mean, can they stop industrial from happening next to them? So in paragraph 1 of the staff report to the mayor and city council, it states that the applicant wants to move forward with the zone change to commercial as the property has not moved into the light manufacturing zoning district in over 30 years. I'm not sure what is meant by that as this property and the property around it has been zoned and used by light manufacturing for decades. Land in this area is not just sitting idle like some comments may lead one to believe. From May 2006 to June of 2020, that's approximately 14 years, the safe property was owned by Robert Trevino for his underground utilities and construction company and for Angelo Trucking Corporation. The property was purchased about five years ago by the current owner who had a use for it when he purchased it. But when his intended use did not work out, he put it on the market. The implication that the land is just sitting there is not accurate. Commercial real estate, especially vacant land, sometimes takes time to sell, especially in the current market of higher construction costs and higher interest rates. That does not justify changing this.

Steve, thank you, sir.

I'm going to submit my written comments because I don't think it's fair for... one side to get 30 or 40 minutes to present.

Steve, thank you. Thank you.

Russell Gulley. As the applicant, he'll get five minutes.

Good morning, Mayor, Councilmembers. I'm Russell Gulley with SKG Engineering. 706 South 8th Street, here today seeking your approval for proposed rezoning of the property at 4239 South 8th Street, South Chatham Street. I want to briefly address the concerns that this request constitutes spot zoning. It is important to distinguish between the labeled and actual legal and planning analysis. The Texas Supreme Court addressed this issue directly in the City of Pharr v. Tippett, as previously mentioned. The Court recognized that zoning is a legislative function and that a zoning amendment is not invalid simply because it affects a particular tract or provides a benefit to the property owner. In fact, in Tippett, the court upheld the rezoning of a relatively small tract to allow a multifamily development. The real question is whether this rezoning is reasonable and has substantial relationship to the city's planning objectives and the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. We know the answer to this question is yes, it does. This answer was ratified by the planning staff and again by the planning commission in previous meetings. This is not a request to put an isolated residential development in the middle of an otherwise established neighborhood, this track along South Chapman Street is in an area with a mixture of existing residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Additionally, the property is in close proximity to Goodfellow Air Force Base that exemplifies these similar characteristics. More importantly, the proposal provides an opportunity to put housing on an underutilized track while utilizing existing public infrastructure. The proposed general commercial zoning, along with the conditional use permit for the multifamily, gives the city more oversight than an unrestricted residential zoning. The property remains commercially zoned while the conditional use can set those additional standards on the property. We believe the city's own zoning policies are important here. The city's planning documents recognize the needs for transition areas between different land uses and recognize that industrial areas can can contain compatible uses within the appropriate development standards and are provided. This is not about ignoring the city's comprehensive plan. It is about applying the city's planning principles to a particular tract and determining that a different use is appropriate at this location. Finally, there is a legitimate public concern here, providing additional housing. making productive use of an existing tract and doing so in a manner that gives the city an opportunity to control the development and mitigate potential impacts. The fact that the current and future property owners benefit does not eliminate that public purpose. Contrary to assertions by others that this area has not progressed towards more industrial and heavy commercial uses, a quick look at history imagery shows less intense use over the past 20 years. pulling up Google Earth and looking at it as of last year and looking at it 20 years ago, you can certainly see that. We would respectfully ask the council to look beyond the mischaracterization of these requests as spot zoning and instead evaluate the actual facts. The city's planning criteria, the characteristics of this property and the safeguards available through the conditional use process. We believe this is a reasonable, controlled and beneficial use of the property and we respectfully request your approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I want to address, I think there are some questions from the DICE on this, Mr. Hebert. TxDOT, yes, we're going to have to talk to TxDOT. They have their TxDOT access management. They'll dictate entrance location size with fire department. We have the international fire code. We're going to have to meet every requirement of the international fire code as part of this. So that's going to be covered. There was even some talk about, and I believe Mr. Vannoy did a great job of covering this, about value. If they're looking at 20 dwelling units, there's a mischaracterization by someone that said 40 duplexes for a total of 80. That's not the truth. The truth is a total of 40 dwelling units, period. Not 40... duplexes, that means 80. It's a total of 40 dwelling units. So these 40 dwelling units that maybe an average cost of $200,000, quick math, that's $8 million of tax base. So we believe that this will certainly be substantially more public benefit from a tax perspective because of an $8 million valuation. The subdivision, Councilmember Hesse-Smith, yes, we will have to go through a subdivision process through the city. In order to get building permits, we will go through the city planning process, and we will follow and meet all of the criteria set forth as part of that. And I think Ms. Coffey had mentioned about entrances. We will work with TxDOT on the entrances. THANK YOU.

RUSSELL, THANK YOU, SIR.

BRANDON SANDERS.

Good morning again. Brandon Sanders, Steve Eustis Company, Realtors. I am a commercial broker, property manager. I have actually looked up. There's approximately 100 tax parcels in this industrial vision plan area. I've represented 31 of those owners over the past 10 to 15 years on various things, some of them ongoing. including next door. So I want to talk about some of those. But to say there hasn't been anything happening or the properties haven't moved is just it's not totally correct. It may not be vocalized. There is a lot of movement. There's a lot of activity out there. In fact, if there were more buildings out there available, they would lease and sell quicker. That might be an issue of cost and everything. The commercial zoning instead of the heavy commercial or the light manufacturing is a huge difference. We have put a number of oil field service, things like that into those yards that may not qualify or need the light manufacturing, but they certainly need heavy. So keep in mind the heavy versus the general commercial is a huge difference in the zoning in which you can use the property for outside storage for one major difference. I just heard on the news actually coming here today that our area was third largest in Texas for new drilling oil, new drilling sites permits. So if we do have an influx of those oil companies again, we're going to see that need just like we did a few years ago. And this is going to be less area for them to go to. I represent the property next door, 4211. I've represented that for the last three or four tenants and the previous owner as well. It has always been heavy users. Diesel mechanic currently. We had oil service yards in the past. We had another truck repair company, things like that. These are going to be on the property line. I mean, I don't know what it's going to ultimately look like, but I hate to think that if there's, you know, they're opening their back door and hearing, seeing what goes on there. We actually... Really try and work with the community when we're working with some of these heavier users and the noise that they produce, trying to go into areas that is not going to affect residents. I do not think it's going to be. I mean, there's going to be a lot of complaints, some of that noise, even though they're below the decibel levels. So I just want to keep that in mind. Yeah, again, currently light manufacturing, welding for fabrication, absolutely a need. If it was heavy commercial use, welding is restricted, but they still have the outside storage. When we move to general commercial, you lose the outside storage, 10% opaque covering. That would, I mean, substantially reduce it. So the... TALK ABOUT THE OTHER HOUSING THAT WAS ADDED TO THE NORTH, THE OTHER PROJECT GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THAT WAS AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SO IT JUST WAS AN EXTENSION IN TOUCHING THAT. THIS IS NOT TOUCHING THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL. I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE OF HOUSES THERE. I UNDERSTAND. THEY WERE 50 YEARS OLD. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. BRANDON, THANK YOU, SIR.

SCOTT TINKERSLEY.

WHO?

SCOTT TINKERSLEY.

ARE YOU SURE?

Good morning, Mayor, Councilman. I'm Scott Tankersley and I'm here advocating for the construction of this project as an Air Education Training Command civic leader for the base. I'm also an honorary commander for Goodfell Air Force Base, so I spent a lot of time out there and I've been involved in housing in San Angelo for. A handful of years, sir, so I kind of know kind of what's going on as far as our housing load. A couple of facts, though, Tommy, to address, excuse me, Councilman Heber, that you had asked that I've got. So the average, the occupancy for San Angelo apartments for years, even when I was president of the association, was about 95 to 98 percent constantly for San Angelo apartments across the board. Out at Goodfellow right now, there's 241 housing units on the base. Those are at 98% occupied right now. Currently there are 50 families on an active waiting list for housing at the base. And the primary people that are getting affected by this lack of housing is the junior enlisted service members, the new E1s to E2, E3s. They're the ones coming in. They're the ones that need housing. They're who we need to support. Now, as an education training command and an honorary civic leader, I get to go to other bases around the country and see what do they do good and what can we do here to do better. And one of the things that I always hear about Goodfellow is how great of a town San Angelo is and we want to make that impact especially on these young airmen when they're coming in and so we want to go after that really good quality of life even if you know if we've got them here for nine months whether in training or if we get them on a four-year turn we want them to have the best possible experience here in San Angelo and housing is key and with something like this coming in this this is huge for the base I mean I know that Not everybody from the base is going to live here. This can be open to anybody, but having something this close of proximity to the base is huge, especially with the shortage that I just told you that we're having at the base. It's it's this would be awesome and it you know discussing with these guys the The rent amounts would align with the base housing allowance so these guys can afford this. The airmen and women that would be coming to Goodfellow, they can afford to live right there. I helped a new airman and his wife get into housing last month, and the first thing they asked me was, well, how close is this to the base? That's all they want to know. And I got them into an apartment right down the loop, so it's close for them, but that is the very first question they ask is, how close to the base is this? so it's important so that's what i got just wanted to share that with y'all thank you all for your time thank you mr tankers zane willard zane's uh developed to see you get five minutes on this gotcha good morning mayor and council members

think there's a lot to unwind here and i'm going to kind of go back to the beginning uh i think y'all are struggling from a budget standpoint managing the city first thing we're trying to do is generate some tax dollars helps the city number two this little uh and i'm a data guy i like to read the san angelo residential intel if you go to page 10 it is In order to facilitate continued job growth and prevent greater housing price increases, more apartments as well as for sale and rental small lot entry level homes, townhomes, patio homes, garden homes, duplex, triplex and fourplex homes will be required and it gives a target price of 175 to 225. This is what we do. We hear that. We see it. We sell some. We rent some. We try to hit the target. I think what Mr. Tankersley just pointed out as far as the rent for the base, we deal with them every day. The need, the demand is huge. My partner and I on this particular one, when we drove up in front, I said, our largest employer in the city of San Angelo is Goodfellow. If I came here from Maryland, I had a gentleman stay at a place at my house last week that's from Maryland. He loves San Angelo, but he's like, man, it just doesn't look as nice as it really is when you get there, when you drive it in and you make your entrance into that base right there. So our goal is to make it look better. I mean, we're going to do something that's nice. We're going to make it look good. We're going to build a high quality product. I think that the demand and what people are saying that we need right there from a residential standpoint, that's kind of my specialty in what we do, and that's kind of the reason we chose the property right there. So before I run out of time, do you have any questions?

Saying you've got a lot of roadblocks, I mean, I'd say headwinds or bumps in the road that you've got to go to get this through. But right now, we're just talking about zoning. But I appreciate you trying to accommodate a definite need that the base has put out. I appreciate that. I think I'm good. Any other questions from the dais? Yes. All right. So, we'll cut his time and allow Karen.

This might be a question for Erin. I thought of another question related to the definition of subdivisions. So it's been pointed out that this will go to housing, 20 units or 40, depending on how you look at it, because they're duplexes. No? Zane's shaking his head. No. 40? 40 standalone houses.

OK. No duplexes, yes.

40. So in theory, could those 40 lots be sold to private individuals?

Again, that may be a subdivision question on how they choose to develop it out, but in the state of Texas, there's two ways to do that, is sell individual lots, which then must abut a right-of-way. Indeed, yes. Or they can condo out structures that do not have to abut. They actually just sell the structure but not the land, and the association holds ownership of the land.

Lots to take in. Okay, so just curious, what is the definition of a subdivision in units? Since you- Say that again. What is the legal definition of a subdivision in terms of units?

Well, simply put for the state and for our ordinances, it's really the splitting of land or the combination of land. If you're putting two parcels together or if you're splitting a parcel into lots, that simply defines a subdivision of land where you have to plat.

I want to say to Zane that opposition from me, if indeed that is how I vote, is not to vote against housing. It's a question about whether or not Building in this area is perhaps incompatible with what is already happening and could happen in the future. So just a statement for me on that.

That's right. There's two changes that have occurred from, if you went from Cristobal Road to that point, the three projects that have occurred since 2003 with the vision plan, was the one at the corner right there that was light manufacturing that was turned into Glenmore Apartments. the fire station, and then at the corner of Edgewood, that was light manufacturing that we're currently building. We're on our 10th house. It's been base people that have moved in there. And I get it that some of the things have changed, but from a need and a change, I mean, that was light manufacturing. They took a 10-acre parcel and turned it into a 5-acre apartment complex on the corner. You couldn't get a busier corner in San Angelo, Texas.

Your question done, Karen? Yes, sir. All right. Zane, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Jeremy Bartz?

I'll wait. Okay.

Okay, Erin, now we're in front of this. Planning, how did this get through planning? What was the vote?

The Planning Commission did vote 6-0 in favor of recommending the zone change and the comprehensive plan change, both of them.

All right, and so the request for a supermajority is because of the opposition that was presented by some of those that spoke today, correct?

That is correct. The 20% of the landowners around had opposition, at least 20%.

All right, so staff recommendation is the approval of the request as it sits before us today, correct? Yes, it is. As presented.

That is correct.

All right. Tom, have you got any further questions for Aaron before we move forward?

I do not, sir.

Okay.

With this and what we've seen for the request for housing from Goodfellow specifically, we're going to move forward. I'll look for a motion at this time. I move we approve as presented, Mayor.

I have a first from Tommy. Second.

I have a second from Harry Thomas. We're completed with public comment, correct? Correct. All right, so we will go through and ask for a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Aye.

Item passes 6-1. I would call for a 10-minute break. Where is it? What have y'all done for lunch? You know what, folks? We're going to make this a 30-minute break. We're going to come back at 1.15.

Any direct?

You know what? We just had a push from council. We're going to have this a working lunch as we move forward. We're going to get our lunch, take about a 15 minute break and be back. We're waiting on Patrick, Reverend Keeley. We're jumping to M right now, y'all. We're going to M. Karen, Mary, we're going to jump to Ida, ma'am.

M as in Mary?

No. I've got a couple of people sitting here that are here for M only. After that, then they can all escape. We lost Hebert again. No, I would tell him. All right, we do have a quorum. We're going to move the meeting back into session. With that, we're going to jump to item M, as in Mary. And we're going to go to the first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for ROW 26-06, a request for the City of San Angelo to abandon a .103 acre alleyway between S, between South Pierce and South Fillmore Street and a .084 acre alleyway between South Taylor Street and South Fillmore Street. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director, Aaron Vinoy. Aaron looks like you have company.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'm going to, this is actually Mr. Austin Reed, who's our Planning and Development Administrator, and he is going to do this presentation. Thank you. Awesome.

Welcome aboard, Austin, again.

I figured we'd give Aaron a break. I'm glad you're working. Okay. Okay.

All right, Austin, all yours.

Thank you. This is a pair of alleyway abandonments for the village apartment complex just south of Beauregard. Both of these requests are within the Santa Rita neighborhood. This is District Number 5 for Karen Hesse-Smith. The vision plan for this area is neighborhood. This alleyway measures about a tenth of an acre, and this one is between Pierce and Fillmore. And then this one is about 0.08 acres. It's about a block away, and it's between Fillmore and Taylor. We sent out 34 notices on this one, did not receive any support. We did receive two who were opposed from nearby businesses. They cited concerns with emergency vehicle access, parking, appearance of fencing, and just a general lack of information. This second one, we received technically none. We did receive one who was opposed from outside the 200 feet, and that was one of the same responses from the other alleyway. So this is just a survey showing you where the two alleyways are in regards to each other. Here are some photos as you can tell they have some carport structures off of both sides of the alleyway through the inside of the lot. On our analysis, the applicants being the landowners, they would like to purchase the alleyway and use it to build fencing around the carports, really acting as a gated entryway for the residents to get to their vehicles and storage under those carports. Right now, really, those alleyways are only used by the apartment complex. There's also no public water or sewer lines within the proposed abandonment. And we did check with third-party providers, and they're not opposed either, as long as an easement is provided. I know there's some overhead lines there. So we are recommending approval of both of the requests subject to our usual three conditions on abandonments, the first being for remittance of payment, second being for the quitclaim deed, third being for that replat to absorb the abandonment within 24 months. Planning Commission did recommend approval of this unanimously at their last meeting and that goes for the other alleyway abandonment as well. You guys have any questions?

Was that the extent of your three-slide presentation?

Yes.

Somebody needs to give him a raise, all right? I mean, that's pretty good. That's right. So these are two different areas, and I think there's a concern with one of these specifically as the ownership, who maintains it, who keeps it. Whose district is this in? Number five. All right. Karen, we'll let you lead on this, and then if we need Karen at your request, we'll move to public comment before we move to a vote if you want. You're welcome.

This is a case of, I guess you could call it fractured ownership. There are multiple owners to the various properties included in this, what are we calling it, condominium development. I'm sure there is a majority owner and smaller owners mixed in and they have a homeowners association. Is that correct?

Yeah, so these are under a condo structure. You're correct. The way we see it is that the ownership is basically for the individual units within the buildings, but the owner of the land itself is the applicant. The owner, they actually own the land adjacent to the alleyway, basically around the carports, and so they have the legal right to apply and to absorb that abandonment if it does get abandoned.

And just to clarify, please, again, would you, what is the reasoning behind closing one end of this strip and not the other?

They seem to have... With a gate, I think, I heard. Yeah, they've had some break-ins, so they're in one or two areas. I think some of the break-ins have been concentrated, so they're looking just to block those points of access off, except to residents who would be able to retain access through a gate, and that would go for emergency services and whoever else needs to get in there.

So it's really not up to us to worry about that, I guess. Theoretically, a bad actor could figure out that they just need to walk around and go in the other side if a gate is blocking access from one end. But how would, let's say, minority property owners expect to voice their concerns going forward if the majority owner is pursuing this abandonment?

What's the correct procedure? I believe that would just be more of a civil issue between the person living there and the property owner. I want to say when we did get this application, we asked ourselves those questions. We did make sure to vet that through our city attorney's office.

Yeah, I guess I'm unclear about the ownership situation. So who owns the actual, I think you showed lots earlier on the plot. I mean, who owns those lots?

So the people who own the lots are the applicants. The people who live there own the individual units of the buildings. So if you could draw lines, you would just draw little lines around the buildings. But the land itself, to my understanding, is owned by the applicant, including the land that directly abuts the alleyway. So I don't believe that any of the people who live there have land that directly abuts the alleyway. They just live within the individual units.

That's a unique situation.

Fractured ownership creates problems. So I was assuming you were going to say that the Homeowners Association would handle that conversation for the people that own the buildings, not the land underneath, but the people that own the buildings. And I know there have been some questions about how the contract is structured and whether or not the name of the entity that is the majority owner should be on the legal documents and not personal names. And so that's probably more of a question for Brandon. I think if it's their company, there's probably

but you tell us. Yeah, really hearing this, I guess I didn't understand it to be the way that we're presenting it now. So I kind of would like some time to research this. This is a unique issue that, I mean, I haven't got to think through. So, I mean, we can go forward. But as far as the quick claim and who it goes to, if that's going to be a controversial thing, then I'd like to take some time on that.

As part of the complete application, we did check. We received deeds from the property owner kind of describing the ownership lines. We did also check to make sure that the name that's signed for the application, they are basically a managing member of the entity that controls these properties.

Are we to infer from what Brandon just stated that tabling this might be a good idea?

I think we will be receptive to that, if that's what makes you comfortable.

May I make that motion?

So, we're going to apply this to both, or just this one?

I would assume both.

Okay. I would thank that. Yeah, with the question here and, you know, my question to you, Austin, do you think Planning knew, was aware of the difference in ownership of this when they saw that?

Yes. When we received the application, it was something that we looked into.

Okay. All right. Well, you know what? I don't know what everybody else thinks, but I'm in agreement with Karen and them over here that I think maybe it'd be good just to take it, to table this and let somebody put some more eyes on it. So I'll make a motion to table this item.

Should we hear the public comment on it?

Absolutely.

Yeah, let's go ahead and hear public comment because that might help them. Is that, are we good with that?

Is that allowed if we table?

Yeah, let's go ahead and hear public comment on it.

Terry Jackson.

Good morning and thank you all for being such great people and having lunch and working through it. We appreciate it. I am in single member district five. I also own a property that is near this and I was the opposition before. Did go to planning and the way it was explained at that time, I thought it would be okay, but After planning, there were several of the property owners. So this is 25 buildings, and there are three to four apartments in each building. The two people that came and brought this forth, and that were the, whatever the word is, I can't think, they owned some of the buildings and some of the individual condominiums, but not all of them. And so I went back, I read through, and I think I sent some copies of the condominium information to different ones and I relied on all of y'all because I had crazy questions and I know you think I'm crazy and I probably am but we're going to talk.

We're not voting on that today.

I know I don't think you have that much time and there'll be a lot more public comment probably. So with the condominium the way it's set up the each individual owner owns their four walls the floor and their ceiling plus they own carport and the storage unit. So the land itself is owned by the condominium association, not by private people. So these individuals that are the proponents is my understanding. They own some of the buildings, some of the apartments, but they do not own the land that belongs to the condo association itself. So the land that is adjacent to the alleyway, is owned by the condominium, and then the carports are owned by individual owners. So I don't know how you can divide that up and do that.

Sounds to me like that's a good discussion for later.

I think that'll be a great discussion for later and a lot of legal stuff to go through just to figure that out because it's going to be a tough one, I think.

As far as like the title, have we done any title work and can point to a title opinion that says this is the record owner or anything?

So the record owners are of, they buy the A condominium, the way this works is you have common area. All of this around the buildings is common area. So in theory, each person, each individual owner out of 100 units owns a portion of that as a whole, but not as an individual. The only thing they own individually is...

So they'd be tenants in common.

Right. It's a common area.

Tenants in common.

And also in their condominium, they have a rule in there that they have to have a minimum of 75% of agreement with all of the other owners before they can buy or sell something. And these two individuals do not have, my understanding, 75% or more. Gotcha.

Well, that was very valuable public comment.

Thank you. And I'm not as crazy as you thought.

No, never have been. Never have been. So I think I made it first to table, and I think Karen gave a second to table. We've had public comment. All those in favor of tabling item N say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are tabling item M as in Mary, 7-0. So now, if I go back, we're going to go back to item F. If we're going to jump all the way back, consider approving North Tier's incentive request in the amount of $300,000 for the following properties, 313 West 8, 309 West 8, 317 West 8. The presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director Aaron Vinoy.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council, City Manager, Aaron Benoit, Director of Planning and Development Services. So item F, as you've read, is for the North Tiers Incentive. That zone is always open for applications at this time. And so we had three property addresses to process this time. They were 309, 313, and 317 West 8th Streets. These all came to us from one applicant for each one of the individual properties. Their proposal is duplex housing. The zoning is RM1 zoning district, and this is District 3, Mr. Harry Thomas. So here's their funding request. They have it 100,000 per unit for a total of 300,000. You can see available for assignment in the north is 3.8 million. And so that would leave us with 3.5 million. So again, what can we fund in an RM1 district? It is for really the facade, the landscaping, the sidewalks, and the development costs for that new duplex to come in. And so each one of these, you can see 313, 309, and 317. And so here is a sample plan. This is one that did receive funding at the corner of 19th and MLK. You can see the lot, how they have it laid out, where they have the garages here to the front. And then they actually have some backyard here at the back that they propose to fence in. They do the driveways, they do landscaping around, and then again, just like in this area, they will propose sidewalks as well. Here's just the elevations of what they will look like from the front and each side, as well as an overhead view. And these are some of the ones that are actually in construction right now. They may be, you know, that's a nice cloudy day there. So maybe these have already been finished. It's been a while since we've had clouds like that. So with that, the staff does recommend the full funding amount to the Tears Board. They heard the case on August 25th. They recommend approval with a 7-0 vote for full funding of $100,000 per address. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, this one up to you, Harry. This is your district.

Well, I'm glad to see that we've got some applicants from the north side of town on this because we've got... typically got a lot more money out there. I certainly think this is a good thing. I'd recommend approval.

Let me see if there's any other questions from the dais. Is there? No.

As always. Patrick? Have you ran the numbers on the potential payback of this?

no we we have not because that's not usually something we would do i know that in another case we did look at one of these duplexes as a sample case and i want to say that they valued at it like 276 000 compared to nothing on the land at the time we do believe that housing of this nature they stay pretty stable for at least 20 years and so if you start looking at 276 as a valuation and then do our tax rate to that. It's going to be in the thousands annually as far as property taxes that would come back, but the valuation. And I want to go back maybe to the first slide. So Houston Heart is right here. This is the access road. Martin Luther King. I don't know how long these have been vacant, but I'm going to bet they've been vacant ever since Houston Heart actually came through there. And to finally get something, it's been speculated a lot of if these could be turned commercial. They're just small lots. This is kind of a dead end street here. It doesn't actually connect to Bryant. And so the circulation is back through there. This area, through the tiers program and the infill program, housing has become much more important. This is just north of our downtown and also in our kind of our commercial corridor between Bryant and Chadburn. And we believe housing infill in that area is very important. So we believe this is going to make a very positive difference on this block. The property owner does actually own all the way from here down to that corner where that current structure is, and they plan to continue through this throughout that entire block.

Is that all tiers eligible?

Yes, it is all within the tiers zone. And I don't know if you heard one before, but I think he's here to speak today, but at the tiers board, they are starting to move and find properties outside of tiers because this housing works in our community. And so that's one of the things is starting to get these small incremental developers here, but then they can start seeing other places that it does work.

So is this my district or Harry's?

I believe it is Harry's, just barely. I think yours starts just a little bit to the north. Yes, sir.

It doesn't make any difference.

It doesn't. I just was curious because I'm like, wait.

Typically on the west side, it belongs to you. But I got one little piece in there, I think.

Yeah.

My issue is not with them doing completely what is within their right. My issue is that we have tiers funding for basically residences when You go one block east of that, and we have infill money, but it's at $5,000 versus $100,000. So that's what I struggle with on these. They brought one before. I voted on it for the same reason. So that's my opinion of it. Because I've ran the payoff. It's 25 years at best.

For the property owner?

for us to receive the tax money back. It was 25 years. That's including that the value actually goes up, so.

Any other questions from the dice? All right, I'll look for a motion.

So moved.

I have a first from Harry Thomas.

Second.

I have a second from Joe Self. Any public comment, Heather?

All right.

Chris Matlock, single-member District 1. I waited five hours, so I feel like I should come up here and say something. Don't talk yourself out of it, all right? Don't shoot yourself in the foot. I know the county backed out of this program, and... We are fairly new in development and we built the five duplexes over there at the corner of MLK and 19th, 18th. We are expanding on that same block to lots that are not in the tier zone. So I do, I think the program is great for incentivizing us and seeing a concept through where we wouldn't have taken that risk initially because the funding wouldn't have been there for it. But after this approval, we're able to see what the benefits are. I really have a heart for this area. I think there's a lot of strength in the MLK, Chadburn area that's being overlooked by a lot of people. I wish more people would get involved in the TEERS program because there's so much money on the north side. We do plan to do seven of them. I know it is a lot of money, but we plan to put a rock wall up. We're worried about traffic coming off the loop there, and that's going to be expensive to run down that side. We also want to make sure we get draining covered. As it goes down to Bryant there, it gets pretty low. And so we just feel like development's not cheap, and this helps us go a long way. And we tried looking at commercial, what would fit there. I think with tech stock coming off, you can't have an access on that part of the street. It just doesn't make sense. This is the only thing that would fit. And so I appreciate you giving me the time to speak this morning and finally getting to the finish line here. So thank you.

Well, number one, thank you for your patience. Number two, thank you for your commitment. There's a huge push to revitalize that area up down Martin Luther King and North Chavern. So we appreciate that. Thank you very much. I've got a first from Harry and a second from Joe. All those in favor of... Approval, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? 6-1 passes item F. Move to item G, consider approving the south tiers incentive request in the amount of $617,530 for the following projects, 116 East Avenue A and 12 East Tuig. Presentation made by Planning and Services Director, Aaron Benoit.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council, Mr. City Manager. Item one of this, of G1, is actually 16 East Avenue A. We had a typo there. That's the river stage, and that's what we'll talk about first. But this here is just the overall picture of the south funding. Just point to right there, we currently have 815,000 in the south funding. Through this request, we have 142,475, which brings to 617. So you can see it's just less than 200,000 in one of the options, and we'll talk through those options in just a moment. But that's just kind of the quick overview of the dollars. So the request is $142,530. Their whole project was $1.2 million. This is to finish out the river stage with exterior paint, stone fencing, fence modifications, and some concrete work that is needed. So at the River Stage, they've been doing things that have addressed the maintenance and accessibility and the long-term venue needs where they've actually made a lot of access. They've expanded some of the seating. They've done restrooms. They've done stuff that has helped with the stage and performing acts and things like that. They see this as an opportunity to improve and grow the areas that they've helped with those accesses, the ticketing and the concession areas and storage. The project's nearing completion and so they want to continue and finish everything before the winter season. Currently their existing funding is exhausted and they're seeking additional help to complete the project. So you can see some areas over here that they've made significant improvements with. Well, that's causing some fencing and security issues that they need to actually address in this area, and there's a slide that shows that. But they've added the men's and women's restrooms, a concession, and additions there with the dressing area and the storage. You can see the other areas where they've added different canopies and pavilions in this women's restroom here and some other expanded areas in there. What they're trying to do is finish this out, make sure that they can finish out everything to have it a complete thing for our community. So again, here's some of the pictures that they've done. You can see some of the additions that they've got there. Some of the other areas that look really, really well. So what they're requesting is painting the exterior of the buildings this SW downing sand color so they all match. They want to do limestone facing on the columns and the wainscot on the south elevation of the stage and replace the west fence and include new concrete in that area that is a security concern for them. So this is a kind of an AI generator, but you can kind of see the stone on the vertical common columns and around the base here. And then they want to paint everything to match. And if you notice in those first pictures that they didn't have the building, the stone and everything didn't quite match like to like exactly. And so they're trying to make everything match through there so that it's a much better experience as you're there. Again, this is that west area where they had that sidewalk come down and extended. They're going to actually move at a gate and then be able to fence off to secure the area completely so that it's safe for concert goers as well as the performers and things like that. So that is the river stage. And now we'll move on. This is a public request for the public good at the river stage. That's why you'll see that it's 142,000 instead of the 100,000 request. So now we'll go into the private request for 12 East Tuig. This is a multi-story building. And so you'll see that the funding request is per story. But the total funding request is 475,000. Project cost is 449,000. And so their match is 174. Their goal is to get ADA upgrades and egress improvements all the way from the basement up to the top floor, elevator upgrades, window replacements on all floors, and double door installations. So doing some facade work as well as getting more of the building to where it can be occupied. So we commonly call this the Junior League building. You can see that it's there located just down from the cactus, one of our blocks that has a lot of, what I say, a lot of activity that's going on and very close to South Chadburn as well. This building has a lot of tenants and they're trying to expand that. At DHRC they came through and they approved these facade changes where they've actually added a door down here directly to the basement for egress. They're opening up some of the windows on the side that are to the west. They actually are doubling the canopy at some point that's out on the front but not quite yet. And then on the east side also retaining the windows and the openings there. So when we brought this forward, we know that our new policies allowed you to apply for $100,000 per floor for a building. They actually have a basement and four floors, so that's five total floors. They also have the ability to ask for funding this calendar year or this fiscal year, I should say, and maybe the next fiscal year. So we propose two options to the tiers board. You see the bottom option here is where if they were to split that, that $200,000 came out of this fiscal year's budget and then $275,000 came out of next year's fiscal budget. So they had the two options. Obviously, we actually have the funding to do the full amount in this year's budget, and ultimately that is the way the tiers board voted, and I'll get to that maybe with this slide right here. So again, staff did recommend both projects for full funding. The tiers board did recommend six to one for the full funding in this fiscal year. The descending vote wanted to split it out over two. They were not opposed to the project in any way. They just wanted to split the cost out over two years. So with that, I will turn this back to you, Mayor, and if you all have any questions.

Actually, this one, I think, sits right in the middle of your district, does it not, Harry?

Both of them are, yeah, District 3. So, you know, from my perspective, this is a different way to look at tiers money, and we've got an opportunity to finish out the River Stage project and do some improvements on the historic building. Personally, I think it's a good opportunity. If I'd have been on the tiers board... I would have probably been in the minority, too, because I would have recommended to split it. But I'm comfortable as long as we're not going, you know, as long as we got the money, so. All right.

Any other questions from the board? All right. So, Harry, do you want to make a motion?

I motion to approve both of these, including the second one, which will take that $475,000 out of this fiscal year.

Awesome. So I've got a first from Harry and a second from Karen Hesse-Smith. Any public comment, Heather? No. No public comment. We'll take a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. Item G passes 7-0. We'll move to item H at 136, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Z26-13 request for a zone change from the General Heavy Commercial Zoning District to the General Commercial Zoning District located at 3 East 9th. Presentation made by Aaron Benoit.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to introduce Nicholas Janney, who's one of our planners. He's new to our staff this summer. He's going to present this case for you, and we're going to see if he can beat Austin Reed's time.

Absolutely.

Heather, can you start that three minute clock?

Good afternoon. Welcome aboard, Nicholas. Council, this is a request for a zone change at 3 East 9th Street. This is in the Reagan neighborhood, District 3, Harry Thomas. The vision plan for this area is commercial. It sits on 0.115 acres. And this is for a zone change from CGCH to CG. You can see today there's an existing residential structure, but it was recently fire damaged. So it's currently sitting vacant. We mailed out 23 notifications for planning commission, received two in opposition, one of which didn't give any specific reason for opposition. The other I was able to speak with. They were more in favor of continuing residential development, basically restoring the home rather than seeing commercial development. And they were opposed to the proposed commercial development at the time. The proposed commercial development has since changed, but at the time it was a members only cigar lounge. But after speaking with the fire marshal, they decided to change that to something else. So this is just for a zone change to general commercial, not to approve the members only cigar lounge. The zoning is, of course, CGCH. This is along Chadburn and the vision plan for this area is commercial. So staff is recommending approval of the zone change request. It's also phasing out the multi-zoning of CGCH that staff is trying to see less of in the future. And Planning Commission also recommended approval with a 6-0 vote. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the dais? With that, I'll look for a motion.

So moved.

I have a first from Harry. Second. Second from Patrick. Any public comment? No public comment. All those in favor of item H say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes 7-0. Congratulations, Nick. You're the winner today on the time slot. Free cigars, that's right. I think it had gone even faster. More approval if they left the cigar bar in there.

You're right, and I've been more than first patron. Yes, you would have.

All right. Focus, focus. Item I, 139, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Z26-15, a request for a zone change from the single-family residential zoning district to the zero lot line twin home and townhome residential zoning district located at 2412 Paint Rock Road. Presentation made by Aaron Benoit. I'm not Aaron.

You're not Aaron. Let's go with Austin. Austin Reed, planning and development administrator. This request is in the Bel Air neighborhood. This is district number four for Patrick Keeley. The vision plan for this area is neighborhood, and this property measures about 8.3 acres. As you can see, it is a large vacant track, and this is just north of the Air Force Base. What we have, as you mentioned, is a request for a zone change from single-family residential to RS3. Not 35 notices on this, did not receive any support. We received one who was opposed within the 200 feet. We did take a few phone calls from surrounding neighbors who just had questions about kind of the layout of the lot. They had some concerns about the flooding, which I can touch on in here just a second.

Here's a look at the zoning and the vision plan.

The zoning, you can see it's just entirely single-family residential RS1 zoning. The vision plan, you can see that everything north of Paint Rock there is neighborhood vision. Everything south of Paint Rock there is campus institutional because that is the base itself. So this is an image showing you how the floodplain intersects with the property. What you can deduce from this probably is that the development will have to be limited to the northwest corner of the property, probably as an extension of Stonewall Drive there. This is just a zoomed out satellite image. As you can see, this is one of the largest remaining undeveloped properties on the north side of the base there. On to our rationale. We do think it's compatible with the surrounding area. Of course, it's surrounded by residential zoning and existing residential developments with the base there to the south. This also does help to meet a community need for more housing. It's within the infill area. More specifically, it can help to meet a local need for more military housing. as it's just north of the base, and sometimes I do look for these specific kinds of developments. There should be no adverse effects on adjacent properties. As I mentioned earlier, the development should be located clear of the floodplain. It's also important to note that a drainage study would be required during the subsequent platting phase. So with that, we are recommending approval of the zone change. Planning Commission also recommended approval unanimously on August 17th. Do you guys have any questions for me? Patrick, your district.

How extensive is that drainage study? Because that's going to be my biggest worry, because we had the same with Paul Ann, and especially, I mean, the flood was obviously way more rain than they're used to, but just in other rains that they've had more issues now than they did before more development came. So how can we make sure that's going to affect those that are already there, and then plus obviously the base?

I don't think we have a representative from engineering services, do we? No. Okay. It's you.

So they can't build in this area, and Shane's probably going to help us out as well. There are very limited restrictions in this area. That's the blue. That's the 100-year floodplain, and then there's no restrictions here. So essentially this makes their developable area. What they have to do here is they cannot allow – as built out based on the coefficient for the RS3 zoning, they cannot allow water to leave that site and go onto these other sites. They have to keep it on their site, detain it through detention or retention, and then slowly release it back out through into the floodway. So this area here that's hatched, they don't have any real super responsibility for, but this area that's developable, they will have to work through with their engineer to design that to, as water flows, is there a way to create, whether that's a detention or retention pond at the southern end. How good was that, Shane? Was that close or wrong?

Nope, you got it pretty good, sir.

All right, I can be a junior engineer in training.

I don't think you've got time for that. No, I don't. Can they use the striped portion as part of their retention bond? Can they dig it out more?

No. The striped portion cannot be touched. And so that will be that. And also, Patrick, with his buyback program, this is one of the properties that he is looking at. Not necessarily he doesn't want to acquire the entire property, only the portion that is hatched and on the eastern side of the property boundary there.

And there's the potential through the replat process as they come forward with the plat that they may dedicate this to the city.

Are they going to try to use that bottom right portion at all?

Not with the pre-development plans that we've seen. There's no access. There's actually a guardrail right here, so there's no real access to that. So it's just kind of leftover land.

And then the street is going to go and intersect with Stonewall there, correct?

The pre-development plan showed a cul-de-sac down in this area that may be too far south that looked like that, that there would not be access at this area.

I think it fits with our established need for housing in that area. And that ought to just help keep bringing up the area. So that's all the questions I got. Thank you.

Patrick, you want to make a motion?

One question, Tom. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed it.

Miss Mary?

Shane, I think I heard you right that you couldn't even make that shaded area, that floodplain, you couldn't make it in a detention pond.

If it's in the blue, they can work with it as long as it's in the blue. The hatched area with the red hatches that are shown there, you can't touch that. So, I mean, not without extensive FEMA map modeling.

Okay. So even the fact that it would help, you know, with flooding or in all – I guess I'm not letting you say no, hell no. But you can't do anything at all. You can't utilize that land for anything.