City Council - Regular Meeting

morning when we turn off and on the mics, but it's 8:32 on Tuesday, March the 17th. We'll go ahead and bring this meeting to order. Um, first of all, we'd like to start with our chaplain prayer. Gary Jenkins will come up and lead us in that. Good morning, mayor and council members, and everyone. It's an honor to be here, and I'm asking if you'll join with me in a word of prayer. Precious Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus, we bow before you, the author and the finisher of our faith to say thank you for this day. We thank you for your grace and your mercy, your longsuffering, your patience, and even your divine protection. But today, we assemble in this chamber to conduct the business of the city. And we ask you to endow our mayor and the city council members with wisdom and knowledge that can only come from you. as they conduct the business of this city with excellence as unto you. So, Father, we thank you also, Lord, for our first responders, our firefighters, our medical EMTs. We also thank you for the veterans that will be honored here today. Those who put their lives on the line for the defense of this nation. We ask you in Jesus' name to bless each and everyone that's here and will ever be mindful to give you and you alone the praise, the thanksgiving, and the glory. And it is so. Amen. And amen. And will you repeat the follow repeat the pledge after me?

To the flag of the United States of America for ity and justice for all Texas to thee. We're going to do this a little different this morning. I want all the veterans to come on down front. We're going to read this proclamation. The mayor has asked me to do it as the veteran that uh on the council. Vietnam War and Veterans Recognition Act of 2017 established March 29th.

Let them all get up here.

All right, let me start over. The mayor knows how to do these proclamations. He does three or four of them every month.

But you're going to do the best. Vietnam Warren's Veterans Recognition Act 2017 established March 29th as National Vietnam Veterans Day. This year, March 29th marks the 51st anniversary of the eminent capture of Ho Chi Min City, the former capital Saigon of the Republic of South Vietnam by North Vietnamese forces. This was the last major military event of the Vietnam War that occurred from March 4th to April 30th, 1975. President Gerald Ford's proclamation on May 7th, 1975 administratively ended this decisive war for the United States of America. On March 29th, 2026, we will once again pause to remember the more than 9 million military personnel who served on active duty during the Vietnam War era from August 5th, 1964 to May 7th, 1975. And many people standing up here served during that era, including myself. This commemoration includes special tribute to the 3.5 million American men and women who served honorably in the Southeast Asia theater and the more than 1.5 service member who either fought in combat or provided close combat support. All these veterans served with courage and valor during what was at that time the nation's longest war. As a nation, we owe an immeasurable amount of gratitude to all veterans who served in the Vietnam War theater of operations, especially to the more than 58,000 who made the ultimate sacrifice, including more than 20 of our own heroes from Tom Green County. The freedoms we enjoy daily are a direct result of their commitment and sacrifice, and we are grateful for their unconditional service. It is equally important to

understand and acknowledge the struggles that untold numbers of these old war horses and their families deal with on a daily basis. As a nation, it is our duty to ensure that we always remember them and diligently strive to meet their needs. As President Lincoln sir, to care for him who has borne the battle and for his widow and officers. Therefore, I, Harry Thomas, city councilman for single member district 3, city of St. Angelo, on behalf of the city council, in accordance with the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act dated March 8th, 2017, we do be do hereby proclaim March 29th, 2026 as Vietnam War Veterans Memorial Day in St. Angelo, Texas. Further be it known that the citizens of St. ans will remember with eternal respect the service, valor, and sacrifices of all former and current active duty personnel of the armed forces of the United States of America. Who's going to accept this? Thank you very much, Councilman Thomas, on behalf of the veteran organizations of the Concho Valley for honoring all of our V Vietnam veterans as well as all who have who have or are serving their country today. May we also pray for the safety of our women and men deployed to the Persian Gulf area with ongoing operation epic fury. In honor of National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Day, Goodfellow Air Force Base will host once again be hosting a ceremony honoring those veterans. The United States Congress authorized lapel pins and certificates will be presented to Vietnam War veterans or their surviving spouses. For those who would like to

attend, it will be held at the Wing Headquarters building on Goodfellow at 11:00 a.m. on March 27th. For non-military guests, please contact Larry Miller. Please raise your hand, Larry, so they can all see who who they're contacting after the city city council meeting so we can ensure your name is placed on the base access list, allowing you to enter the base and attend the event. This year, we'll also be honoring those veterans that served during the Desert Shield, Desert Storm campaigns, which defeated Iraq and liberated Kuwait from August 1990 through January 1991. We'll be honoring them with a commemorative pen and certificate honoring their service and sacrifice for to our country. Again, for anyone here a veteran of Desert Shield or Desert Storm, if you would like to also be honored during this ceremony at Goodfellow, please see Larry. Raise your hand again, Larry. after the city council meeting. We are especially honored today to have one of these war fighters with us, United States Marine Corps veteran Corporal Troy Crosby, who will be the first Desert Shield Desert Storm veteran to be awarded the new commemorative pin from Councilman Harry Thomas. Councilman Thomas, Corporal Crosby, and Mrs. Crosby, will you please come forward?

This time, I'd like to ask that the Crosby family and friends and fellow veterans come forward and join in the photos. Thank you again, Mayor Thompson, Councilman Thomas, and the city council for allowing us to present this award during this ceremony.

Absolutely. So, if we have anybody here with SBDC, come on down, please. Thought I saw some of y'all sneaking in early. Dez, if you'll just start them right here. Perfect. Usual suspects. Texas SBDC day. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, contributing to job creation, innovation, and community vitality. The National Small Business Development Center, SBDC, program was established through the Small Business Act of 1976 as a program of the US Small Business Administration. Small Business Development Centers play a crucial role in supporting economic growth by providing expert guidance, resources, and training to entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs, and small business owners. Since 1990, the Angelo State University Small Business Development Center has been instrumental in empowering small businesses in our community by offering nocost consulting services and training workshops with a mission to foster small business success. The ASU SBDC educates and assists entrepreneurs in key areas of business development that support businesses growth and retention. Small businesses play a vital role in sustaining St. Angelo's economy. With 96% of local employers operating with fewer than 50 employees, St. Angelo was fundamentally supported by its small business community. These businesses create jobs, keep capital circulating locally, and provide stability during economic shifts. The ASU Small Business Development Center advances regional economic health by equipping

entrepreneurs with resources to launch, expand, and remain competitive. Over the past year, this support has facilitated a capital injection exceeding $8.2 million into the local economy. Recognizing the importance of small businesses and the support provided by the Angelo State University Small Business Development Center, it is fitting that I, Tom Thompson, mayor of the city of St. Angelo, Texas, on behalf of City Council, do hereby proclaim March 18th, 2026 as Texas SBDC Day in the City of St. Angelo, Texas, designated as a day to honor their contributions and celebrate their achievements. Somebody's got to come talk a little bit, Dez, scoot over a little bit.

Thank you so much. We really appreciate this from you, Mayor Thompson, and the city council and our community that supports us regularly. This is our lovely advising team and our student team that helps support us and support our small businesses. And so we just want to say thank you for letting us celebrate um our successful clients with you all today and and throughout the year. Let's get a photo. I'm missing another one.

Did I give y'all two? Okay, we're going to do the developmental disability awareness month. Greg, if you've got a crew, let's bring them up. It is estimated that over 600,000 individuals in Texas have developmental disabilities. In St. Angelo, MHMRCV served an estimated 1,082 citizens. These citizens aspire to the very same hopes and dreams we all cherish as citizens, including self-sufficiency, finding fulfilling work, practicing one's faith, and making a difference. People with de with with developmental disabilities have unique skills and perspectives, but they also face unique challenges. Throughout history, these individuals have made St. Angel a better place for us all. Each year, the month of March is set aside to raise awareness about developmental disabilities and to show solidarity with affected individuals, their families, and their care providers as we emphasize the importance of inclusion in every aspect of life. During this observance and hereafter, all citizens can learn about how classrooms, workspaces, houses of worship, and communities are stronger when they include people of all abilities. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, the mayor of the city of St. Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the city council, do hereby proclaim March 2026 as developmental disability awareness month in the city of St. Angelo and encourage every citizen to raise awareness about developmental disabilities and to continue the work towards full inclusion and equality for us all.

Thank you, mayor, and thank you, city council. Um, we really we MHMR greatly appreciates our partnership with the city and your support. Um, as you see, I brought a few people with me. Um that really is the meaning of what we do and try to support folks in our community. Um we have some of our basketball team and cheerleaders here. Not everyone knows we do have a great basketball team, the Concho Valley Bobcats. And the highlight of the developmental disability awareness month is a big basketball game up at Howard College in Big Spring where we play a lot of the other community centers. Um and we have some of them representing us here. Uh we have a great team. they do a halftime presentation. This is on the 27th of March and would love to have anyone come and support us. Um Howard College is a great uh asset to us all and uh offers their their gym and coliseum for us to to have these games. Um we have an aggressive team and we play uh Abalene as our big um uh competitor uh and rival and so we uh we want to do well again this year and uh greatly appreciate the support and everything we do to help folks and um our mission for MHMR is working together to help people help themselves and that's what we uh we try to do every day. So thank you and thank you to the city.

Now that we finished Proclamations. We're going to move into 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 order which they signed in. When speaking, citizens must speak from the podium. Address all comments to the dis. Begin by stating your name and your address or single member district number and limit your remarks to three minutes or less. Heather, do we have any public comment? Dana Martin Dana Martin

Richard Summers Mr. Summers.

Yeah, there he is. Good morning, members, mayor, and staff. My name is Richard Summers from District 5. Council, let's think together for a moment about how systems, including governance, can make decisions involving incentives which become misaligned with public welfare. Engineers and economists have long recognized that once a system begins rewards receiving for a particular outcome, it optimizes for that outcome even when larger and related systems suffer. In governance, we call this devian institutional capture. Members, please understand this behavior may not require or even involve malicious intent. The actual danger is structural blindness. When incentives push strongly enough in one direction, growth headlines, prestige projects, ribbon cutings, systems begin to ignore, dismiss, or even withhold information. This despite critical warnings, not because humans intend harm, but because the system has learned to move relentlessly toward the reward. Council members, each of you represents a district in the city, and mayor, you represent the whole. Each of you then represent families who trust that your major decisions will not only strengthen the place they live, but improve it. They don't expect you to collapse transparency nor to act hastily while facing imminent stress in housing availability and

affordability, infrastructure capacity, uncertain water stability, rapidly wavering workforce conditions, and associated emergency services pressures. Other communities coping with hyperscale compute development have experienced these same pressures. To ignore or to dismiss these is to optimize the promise of future reward while shifting real costs into the present. That shift of cost falls onto residents and taxpayers. Council members, the responsible step here is both clear and simple. Before committing St. Angelo to any project of the magnitude of the hypers scale data center. Pause long enough to ensure the city is not optimizing for the wrong reward. And a temporary moratorium devoted to structured data center reviews is not anti-development. It is progovernance. St. Angel deserves development that strengthens a city, not development that overwhelms it. To provide the assurance, you must protect the people who live here, those who place their electoral trust in you to continue to expect you to do exactly that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Summers. Heather, more public comment. Haley Lancaster, Marissa Reyos.

That's all for general public comment. All right, with that, we're going to conclude public comment. We'll move straight into the consent agenda. Um, and I'll start down here at the DA on the left. We'll start with you, Tommy, as we move across. You got anything to pull? Nothing to pull. Mayor Joe Sil. Nothing to pull. Harry Thomas. Nothing to pull. Patrick, D, E, and L. Oh, I thought you said I. That's D, E, and L. All right. Karen J

wants to pull J. Mary. Um, F. I just have one quick question on it. That's fine. You just pull an F. Cool. All right. So, with this, do I have a motion to approve all other items? Second.

I have a first from Harry, excuse me, first from Tommy, a second from Joe, and that is the approval. And y'all pay attention. Make sure I don't miss it. Of items A, B, C, G, H, I, K, M, and N. That's correct. Is there any public comment on those items, Heather? All right. With no public comment on those items, all in favor say I.

Any opposed? Specified items pass 70. Now we'll move into the first pulled item. Item D. Considering approving an airport raw lease with DK Boyd for 2,300 square foot lot number four on the south taxi lane development in the amount of 4600 per year and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Justin Fletcher, which you don't look like Justin. Not saying anything different there. And your name, sir? Good morning, mayor. Uh Keith Muny. Keith Muny. Yes, sir. And your title and position? Uh, deputy director deputy director of the airport. All right, Mr. Muny, Mr. Keelley's got some questions. Okay. Good morning.

Good morning. Um, so I think in talks before we've talked about how our rent has been pretty cheap out there and we are going to work to getting it up. Um, and even kind of from what I've been told, even this is lower than what we think it should be at at this rate. Is that correct? You That is correct. Okay,

that is correct. Yes. This this lease was negotiated in December of 2025. uh 20 cents per square foot. So current land lease rate that we do have is 12 cents per foot. So this is a little higher. Um in April May of this year, we're plan on meeting with the advisor airport advisory board to increase that rate to 30 cents. So the the 20 cents that we're going to be currently um charging per square foot, there's a 2% increase per year over year when that lease is in effect. Okay. That I didn't know of. So, it's 2% every year. Yes, sir. Okay. Because it just on just what we see, it's just a 20-year initial term.

Um I mean, I'm I'm going to say that that's still we're still 10 cents less. That's 33% roughly. That is correct. Yes. To have that for another 20 years. I I think that's poor economic responsibility on our part. Um and we've got two of them. They're basically the same. Um so, I mean, those are my questions. Um I'm going to um are we would we have any issue reworking a deal with them to try to get a new lease at a at a

Yes. So yes, so their response for the initiation make sure that they provide the um architectural drawings as well and so they're going to be moving forward. But yes, you're absolutely right. That's why we're looking at the 30 cents so that we can be in line with the rest of the state of Texas. Um our rate is very low and it's been like that for a little while. So, we're doing our due diligence to make sure we raise those up higher. Yes, sir. Thank you. That's what I need to know. Muny, let me ask you this question. Once they So, this is just the ground underneath the hanger. All developmental, all things like that. Assuming these hangers are similar cost to other cities is about a million dollars a hanger. That is correct. All right. And so, they the developer builder lease bears all those costs.

That is correct. And so, this is just raw line lease. That is correct. Yes, sir. Right. And so and then that moves forward and then at the end of the lease, it comes back over to the city of to the city when the lease terminates. That is correct. And should they not do an extension, that's when it would come back to the city. Yes, sir. That is correct. Yes, sir. And that is lease property with the same rules that govern lease property. So I'm assuming that would also include if any taxes are levied, Brandon, are taxes levied? Well,

traditionally I I think they've been exempt, but we the appraisal district has uh talked to us recently that they are reviewing all commercial leases of the city. So, they probably will be taxable in the near future. and our leases are will all say that the tenant is responsible for any assessed property taxes and that's driven by the county appraisal district in the state not the city. Yeah. Cool. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you to awesome. Any further questions for Mr. Patrick? Make a motion. I make a motion we veto it. Thank you. Whoa. Whoa. That's a veto.

That's a veto. Did you want Okay. Did you hear Patrick? He wants to veto the lease. No, I did not. I thought he said he wanted to make a motion that Let's Let's go to Brandon. It's a motion to deny, I would say. So, does that motion have to deny the lease have a second? And is this for D and E? And and are are we saying we want to go back and renegotiate or we don't want to lease it to this? Oh, yeah. Mine's just renegotiating. We're okay. We're already 30% low and to have that for 20 years I think is irresponsible

and and I'm fine with doing it with both or or just one whichever um the DAS thinks is is best if we want to start with one but it's the same exact lease. So, so I think the question here is do we take it as presented, approve it as presented or right vote against? And if you don't, then I think it would just be direction back to staff to go talk to this individual and see where we can get it. Right. So, do we change his motion to I mean, we would still deny it, correct? And then they could just go back and renegotiate. that would have to Yeah, I mean I I would say I think I think we need to take a vote on Patrick's denial.

We'll see how council shakes out. If somebody else wants to make uh another motion or give direction to staff, we can move forward that way. But I think we need to make take motion a mo take Patrick's motion, make a vote, and proceed. Second for that denial. Yeah. Does he have one? So is there a second for Patrick's denial? So there's a first by Patrick and a second by Mary for a denial. Is there any public comment on this? None. Right. Is this also for D and E? No, this is just the single item D. We take them item by item. Do you have a comment?

Comment question really. You negotiated this lease I understand Mr. my back in December with the potential tenant. They negotiated with us in good faith in December. That is correct. Has the board yet voted to increase our raw land lease rates to 30 cents a square foot yet? No, sir. That's presented in April, May of this year. Okay.

That's what we're taking to the board. Then I personally have a problem somebody negotiating in good faith at 20 cents a square foot and then we come in and try to renegotiate that. Then that presents an ethical problem for me. Um so that's that's my comment. I think we'll determine that with a vote. So all of those in favor of the denial of item D say I. Take it individual. Uh individual nay nay nay nay nay I'm a nay I nay

since I seconded his original motion then I I can't I I guess I could you could vote anyway you want okay my whole deal is I I do agree with Tommy on the good faith I mean that's just not the right thing to do to to go and up it at the last minute. But is there room for discussion on that with the potential client?

Well, when the city when our rate was 12 cents, we negotiated 20 cents, which was 8 cents higher at that time in December. So now moving forward in April, May um when we meet with the board, we request, you know, 30 cents so that we can try to be in line with the rest of the state of Texas. So yes, we did negotiate. Um Justin did negotiate, the director did um at that time and so yes, so based on the rate that was currently then at 12 cents at 20 cent that was not a bad rate at the time we had met with the board to go higher and we wanted to do a do take all the necessary step to make sure we're in compliance.

I will say last week the airport board met and they're going to move all future leases to a 30 but this was brought up in discussion. that has already been pre-negotiated, but the airport board approved the existing ones at 20 cents and said for all future ones be 30. And so the airport also ratified this also was coming forth as is. Understood that they negotiated it early and were the first two people to agree to spend a million dollars on a hanger. It's just a yes or no. Then nay. All right. So denial fails five to two. You have your motion. If there's another motion, then we can move forward.

Right. So, if there's another motion on the floor, we move forward. Correct. Was it 61? I thought Karen, how did you vote? I was the only one that voted. You were the only name. All right. That was 61. I seconded his original. All right. I make a motion to move to approve as presented. Have a first and a second. Any public comment, which there wasn't on the first one. All those in favor of approving item D as presented say I. Any opposed? Nay. Item passes 61.

I I do want to acknowledge Patrick's uh diligence in this. Not saying that you weren't, but he's a a bit of a watchdog and I can certainly appreciate that. So, just kind of a word to all of us going forward. We have to do the best we can on that. But I do appreciate you, Patrick, for looking at that. Thank you. So, now we'll move to item E. Yes, sir. Right here. Consider approving an airport raw land lease with Wade Hope for 2300 ft lot three on the south taxi lane development in the mount of 4600 per year and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Patrick, no questions.

Any questions from the DAS? I'll make a motion to approve as presented. Second. I have a second from Karen. Any public comment? With no public comment, all those in favor of item E say I. Item passes 61. Is that correct, Patrick? I make sure. All right. Don't give me. All right. Now, we'll move to item F. You're done. Okay. I didn't know if that was You can escape now. Let's see. Oh, F is Is he F? Oh, he's F2. I just jumped to Mary Coffee. Hey, stay up here. All right, I'll go ahead and read the next item. See what it is.

Consider authorizing a lease agreement with Miguel Vasquez DBA, the co-pilot grill for the 669 square feet concession airspace in the airport terminal and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Justin Fletcher or Mr. Yes, sir. Mayor, you got questions? Thank you. Just a quick question. Uh at one point we were looking at having kind of a series of food trucks out there. Is that still uh the plan or how does this fit in?

So we've actually um had one interested party to come out that showed interest and pay the the yearly fee to be out at the airport and over time the drive wasn't there. I guess he you know it was sporadic so we didn't know when he was coming or not. So that has kind of dwindled down. Um we have not had a food service in the airport for a considerable amount of time. So they showed interest. They're starting from the ground up and so yes, the the food truck has not been very successful like we anticipated to be. But this is a brick and mortar. Yes, ma'am. That is correct. Inside the terminal. Good deal. And and he's also planning on um open up whenever we have the flights in. So the 6 a.m. the 5 a.m. flight, the 10 a.m. flight, and then also the 6:00 p.m. flight during those time when passengers in the terminal. Fantastic. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. 6A.

All I had. Any additional questions on item F? Mary, can I get a motion? Move to approve. Got first from Mary and a second from Joseph. Any public comment? With no public comment, we'll take a vote on item F. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Item passes 70. Thank you.

Now you can escape, my all right. Now we're going to go down to item J. Consider approving a resolution authorizing the city to apply for financial assistance from the Texas Water Development Board's drinking water state revolving fund lead service line replacement program for the city of St. Angel's lead and galvanized iron steel service line location inventory. John Kaufman. John, you're on. Karen, you had questions. I uh pulled this for the sole purpose of asking you to clarify for the public some of the details of this particular uh agenda item because it's a little a little confusing when you read it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the city's going to take out a loan for $9.8 million. It's an option. Can you walk us through it, please?

I'd be happy to. I'm John Coffin, director of water utilities. Um the confusing language I would have to attribute to the Texas Water Development Board. They're not always straight and clear on things. Um but uh we have a lead service line identification program that's ongoing that's pursuant to the 2024 lead and copper rule improvements. This is an unfunded federal mandate. Um, so what we've done is we we've incorporated this the identification of lead service lines pursuant to federal regulation by EPA into our meter replacement program. So as we're replacing meters in the city, we're also identifying any lead copper service lines that are out there. Um, so that's what we're doing to date. We've identified, excuse me, we've we we've investigated 28,585 service lines to date. We've got about 8,200 left to do. Uh our cost to date just on the identification part of it is just under $600,000. About $589 $589,0009 $9924. Um, our forecast total cost for the lead service line identification part of the project is approximately $760,000. Um, plus any engineering services that are related to the inventory of the service lines and putting the information together on our city website.

Have you found any lines that are uh out of compliance at this time? We have found no lead service lines in the city of any kind either on our side or the customer side. That doesn't mean we won't find some more in the future, but so far we've found none. Um if we find any, we're required by the regulation to replace all lead service lines within 10 years of identification. So this agenda item uh award gives you the option to apply for a loan should it be needed and if it is needed what is the financial liability of that?

The financial liability as I understand is 0% interest uh and we wouldn't be borrowing any more money than what we've uh dedicated for the investigative part of the project which right now is less than a million dollars. Yeah. So, uh, we have some vetting to do on the whole program. Uh, this was just introduced to us at the very end of the month of February. Um, I filed the notice of intent to apply to keep us u uh with with that opportunity to do so, but there are off ramps. We don't have to do it if we decide we don't think we it's in our best interest to do it. But with a 0% interest rate, it seemed attractive.

Indeed. Thank you for helping us understand. Any other questions? With no other questions, I'll look for a motion. Motion to I have a first from Karen and a second from Tommy Heert. Any public comment? With no public comment, we'll take a vote on item J. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Item passes 70. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Coffin. Now we'll re move down to item L. Consider a resolution approving non-monetary inind support for the St. Angela girls fast pitch softball hosting of three tournaments a year at the Texas Bank Sports Complex. Jesse Beans. Yes. Um first off, do y'all have any questions first? Our football our coach. Uh yeah, I just uh I just wanted to kind of bring it to light and show that we are um I assume it's going to be out the Texas sports complex. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And that'll help utilize our fields there. They How much of the complex do they usually use when they come to town?

Yes. So, uh for West Texas Allstars, so what brought this forth is every three years we host West Texas Allstars. What we're trying to do is have a better relationship with USA softball to where the relationship is. All right, why not just why bring money just every three years when we could help the city every year and what we need to do to do that. Um so they use the whole complex quads two through four because quad one's more of a baseball setup. Um and then for West Texas Allstars on a down year if there's projected rain it'll be 67 teams but you know can be upwards of 100. Um last this past summer the economic impact was over $700,000 and that's with one of the days having lightning and rain and the last day being completely rained out. I mean when it was raining you still had angry cactus parking lot full and you saw that all the parents cars decked out for softball. Uh the one that was 3 years before the economic impact was 1.4 million. Uh in terms of field rentals each year we fluctuate between 16,000 and $28,000. Right now for this fiscal year we're 15, but that's still a far cry from 700,000 or 1.4. So, uh, we just believe that these tournaments are a good way to really produce commerce for the city.

Absolutely. I agree. I move to approve. Nobody else has any questions. Let me see. Any questions? Comment, Jesse. That's um you're talking about the potential for nine tournaments versus one tournament, right? Yes, sir. I think that's just something I want to make sure it's emphasized for the citizens are listening right now, and that's great. Thank you for the work on that. Okay. So, with that on the floor, I have a first from Patrick. I've got a second from Tommy Heert and a third from Karen Hessie Smith. Why not? Is there any public comment on this item? Great item. With that, let's take a vote. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Item passes 70. Thank you, sir.

Good question. Thanks for pulling that because we don't get that out enough. All right, we're going to move into item six, regular agenda. Comments regarding items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above. To to participate, please sign in with city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called in order. They are signed in. Comments are limited to less than three minutes. Applicants, proponents, and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit the remarks to less than five minutes. We'll move in item A. Consider accepting the city's fiscal year 2025 annual comprehensive financial report and single audit presentation made by Patio Brown and Hill LLP audit manager Clayton Rogers. You don't look like Clayton. I just looked up and I got a surprise. John,

good morning, Mayor, Council, Mr. Valenuela. I'm just here to introduce Clayton Rogers. He's one of the partners there at Pillo Hill and Brown. Um, go ahead and invite him up. He's going to go over the report with you guys this morning. And you are? Name and title. Uh Jonathan Flores, interimm assistant finance director. Thank you. Mayor, council. Thank you'all for having me. Jonathan missed his opportunity to uh be an auditor for a day. So, I guess I'll uh I'll stick to the plan and I'll uh take care of that part.

He gets it whether he likes it or not. Well, thank you all for having me. Um, as uh was mentioned, I'm here to talk about the uh fiscal year 2025 uh annual comprehensive financial report and the audit that we did over it. Um, as much as I'd love to give you the five minutes per page version of this 120 page document, I'm going to keep it very high level. I have just a few slides prepared. Um, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have about the audit process or um the uh city's financial statements. So, just a little bit about us. Um, this is our second year working with y'all. Um, we're a midsize firm based out of Waco. Um, it's our second year working with St. Angelo. We really appreciate um the opportunity to work with y'all. Um, and we've really enjoyed also and appreciated working with the city staff. And before I go any further, I'd like to thank Jonathan, uh, Briana, and all the finance team uh, that we worked with. Um, everyone was uh super easy to work with, very forthcoming, transparent, and uh got us everything that we needed to be able to uh give you a clean audit. And I guess I kind of uh spoiled my own uh spoiled my own thunder there. Um just as a refresher about the audit process, um what we are engaged to do is render an opinion that the financial statements that are in front of you are materially accurate in accordance with accounting principles. Now, materially accurate doesn't mean perfect. Um, we don't look at every dollar. We don't look at every transaction. That would be cost prohibitive. But even if we did look at every dollar in every transaction, there's inherent limitations to an audit. Um, but that being said, it is what we would consider to be a pretty high level of assurance. Um, we perform lots of procedures, spend hundreds and hundreds of hours um, working through the audit, and ultimately we render that opinion uh, that's based on all of our audit evidence. And you'll see there we are uh rendering what we call an unmodified opinion. Um it's also known

as a clean opinion. And so what that means is that based on our audit, we do believe that the financial statements of the city are materially accurate for fiscal year 2025. Um that's the highest level of assurance that we can give. And uh yeah, so the other thing you get is a two for one special. Um I mentioned this a little bit last year as well. Um it's not something new for the city. Um, but because the city expends a certain amount of federal money, um, as we all know, um, when you, uh, take the feds money, you have to do what the feds want with that money. There's a number of compliance requirements that are attached to, um, federal dollars. And so what this triggers is a compliance audit over certain programs based on certain criteria. So this year we looked at two programs. It was the tail end of your ARPA money as well as the COPS grant. And what we do is again we don't look at every single compliance requirement um or every single transaction. We do things on a test basis and we're really focused on material compliance with those big important compliance requirements that are with those uh those grant requirements. So, what that looks like is that um really what would if you didn't do something that was uh supposed to be done or that you did something you weren't supposed to do with those grant funds, would it be something at the level that um the federal granting agency would be really concerned about it and that there might be a remedial action? Um ultimately though uh we perform our audit um over compliance. management is responsible for compliance and for also having processes and controls in place to make that compliance happen on its own and not by accident. In other words, um you don't want a situation where um the city complies because we came in and told them what to do and then they decide to go do it. Um the city is

responsible for having controls in place that just makes that happen on its own. I am happy to report we have an unmodified opinion there over both of those programs um which is the highest level of assurance we can give there as well. Um as I mentioned since we don't want good things happening by accident um we would also be um required to report on if we had problems with those internal controls. Now, one thing I want to be um clear about is that it's not our responsibility and we're not engaged to go looking for problems um either internal control over financial reporting or controls over compliance. We look at the city's processes and controls for the express purpose of planning and performing our audit. And if we stumble across a problem with controls, we have to do something with it. Um but I am happy to report that we had uh no reported findings over uh financial reporting or over compliance. So what that means is um not that the city's controls or processes are perfect. We know that there's always room for improvement. There's always things that can be um tightened up or u made more efficient. Especially even if you have a almost perfect system, things change over time. requirements change. Um, one thing, uh, Jonathan actually I have to give him the, uh, brownie points. He was my first client that asked me about, um, the down in the weeds implications of the penny going away. Um, so that there will be things in the city's process that have to change when the penny goes away. Um, so what works now and is a great idea now may shift over time. So, um, that's what we're looking at there. Um, the other thing that we're looking at under government auditing standards is compliance. And that's not compliance just with those federal grant funds that we looked at. It's kind of compliance in

general. And I want to be very clear again that this is compliance with laws, regulations, and contractual agreements that would be both direct and material to the financial statements. So again, there are numerous uh requirements of all kinds. We're looking at what would have a big material effect on the financial statements. For example, if you had grant funds uh that if you materially didn't comply with those federal compliance requirements, there could be clawback and that that would be a liability that needs to be reported. So, there are uh constraints there as well, but we do do some test work and again uh no findings to report there. Um to follow up with um where we were last year, there was a reported finding in last year's report um that was over some really some once a year accounting things that we simply made a recommendation that hey, we really think this needs to be looked at. Um I told you then that I didn't think it was going to be a big deal and I'm happy to report that it wasn't. Um we sat down with management and talked about um how we thought some of those things would look. They agreed and when we did the audit this year, all that stuff was in ship shape. So, um, no issues there, no findings reported. Um, it's really about as good as it gets. Um, not that it can't always be better. Um, I know again from y'all's perspective and from management's perspective, there's always new things coming up, always new problems uh, to address. I know one of the challenges this last year with the city was um making some changes to its accounting software. I am here to tell you that I have yet to in 10 years of being in the business ever had a government tell me that that process went smoothly. Um it there's a spectrum of how difficult that can be. Um it seemed like for St. Angelo, at least from my perspective as the auditor, it went very smoothly. um at least from the

perspective of um we're still able to come to you with the audit finished at the exact same time that we have in the past. Um there are certainly governments that that shift went poorly enough that just getting the books ready for audit takes a lot of extra time. Um so definitely uh some challenges that I'm sure uh city staff had to deal with, but that uh really was just a blip on the audit radar. So, um, as I mentioned, the city's annual comprehensive financial report, which you should all have a copy of, um, is a very big, thick, detailed document. Um, I'm a CPA who looks at these all day long, and it makes my eyes cross after about 10 or 12 hours of reviewing it. So, I'm not going to go uh into any detail as my part of the presentation, but uh here in a moment, I will open it up to any questions that you might have had um reviewing this that was sent out. Um the bulk of the financials is the fi the basic financial statements and the notes to the financials. Um those are both the integral parts of what we were auditing. Most of the rest of the report, the introductory section and that statistical section, they are technically unodudited. Um, but that we do certain things with them essentially to make sure that there's not anything that looks really crazy in there. Um, management's not allowed to put anything that they want in there just because it's un audited. If we thought there was something that was misleading or a material misstatement of fact in the context of the financials, we would be um taking that issue with them. Um, but ultimately, um, there's a lot of good information, especially in the back of the report, uh, 10-year trend information and such, um, that feeds into that. So, with that, um, I will open it up to, um, if y'all have questions about the audit process or anything in the financials that you'd like to drill down on

is the public needs to understand the process of this audit. And I think I'm going to bring in Tina on this. This probably goes over there's several meetings with a audit committee, correct? Tina, could you maybe elaborate on that? This is just not a give them the paper and then give it right back. So maybe give them everybody a little background of what our process is to make sure we get accurate unbiased data provided.

Well, Clayton and his team um come in probably midsummer last year to do some interim test work. That's kind of the start of the audit process and then you know working towards the end of the year um they give us um what's called a PBC listing and that's prepared by client um a list long long list of items that they review and look over and um we kind of work on the timeline with them and you know once year end hits then we're able to provide them the uh the year-end financial statements and that's what they use to make their selections for the audit process. Um, we do also review the audit um, in a little more detail with our audit committee which I think Harry and Tommy um, sit on that committee for us and so they've seen this before as well.

Okay, cool. Thank you, Clayton. Just one thing and it's something we all need to ask. I mean, as the information provided, do we benchmark along with similar size cities? I would say so. All right. And do you think if you were going to score as one to 10? Not that. Oh man. uh probably in while we're all listening. 11 maybe 12. That's that's perfect. That's perfect.

Yeah. Love. But I just want to say this is one of the most um transparent things you can do as a city is do an individual, you know, your own selfidentity audit and go back through and look for problem. The problem we had last year was just how we were booking and on a time frame of when we booked it the income and for the appropriate period. So, in the 8, nine years we've been here, we've never found anything that we haven't been fairly compliant on or at least something that we couldn't fix. And with that, I'll open the dice up to any questions. Tommy, I'll move left or right. You got questions?

Just a comment uh to our our finance staff. Clayton has already alluded to it, but uh they do excellent work. Um so, my congratulations to our finance team, Jonathan and his crew. Um, so again they they they are the ones that keep us on track. So thanks to them, Mr. S. I want to reiterate what he said. Thank you. That's a ditto. Yeah. Awesome. Harry.

Yeah. Just a real quick comment. Uh when we changed audit firms two years ago, and I know that we we have to do this on a regular basis. Uh we vetted this particular group long before we ever decided to hire them. I will have to say uh I've been impressed because uh Clayton and at least one other staff member has been part of our audit quarterly audit meetings since they came on board. um they know what we're doing. They're aware of what we're doing. And when they go through and look at the books, they got a good feel for uh what the staff and the oversight the because we got Tommy and I have been on that uh audit committee for two or three years, but we also have some citizens from St. Angelo that are on that audit committee. So, we have pretty good oversight on it. But Clayton and his team did an excellent job this year, but they were interactive with us the whole year.

Awesome. All right, Patrick, any questions? Karen, no. Miss Mary, all that. So, was this an action item? Do we need to take a vote on this? So, I'll look

to accept it. Daniel, did you have any comments? Um this is actually my last audit and uh quite frankly when I look at everything that everybody said as far as the staff, it started with Michael Dayne then Watina and of course now interim with Jonathan have always been so conscientious about the work they do. I mean every year they went the they win two excellence awards and so they're just an absolutely outstanding team. They work very well together uh and you see it. But again I am just so so blessed and so thankful that I've had such a wonderful team to work with. So again, Tina, Jonathan, thanks for all the work you guys do. It's been it's been great to work with you. I was going to tear up a little bit right there. I was I was

awesome. So I'll look for a motion to accept the audit as presented. I have a first from Karen and a second from Harry Thomas. Is there any public comment? With no public comment, we'll look to take a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? None opposed. Item A passes 70. Clayton, thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll move to item B. Consider approving the purchase of 601 Real Console Drive from Judith E. Horn Living Trust for the purchase price and closing costs not to exceed $150,000 sourced from the general capital projects fund balance and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Presentation made by real estate manager Sarah Torres and Parks and Recreation Director Carl White. Good morning. Uh, we just brought this item to you for your approval due to there being a budget amendment tied to it. Um, it has been discussed with y'all previously. I don't know if you have any questions or if you want some more detail. Carl and I are both here.

Maybe you would give them a description of the property of where it's at and kind of what it puts together. Sure. This property is near this facility, the convention center, and the city is looking at purchasing that for future expansion of parks and recreation facilities. And does that so we had one piece of property, right? This will tie in and give us um from this facility over, we now own the other two properties. Makes it one contiguous piece. Yes. For that future expansion. All right. With that, any questions from the Das for Sarah? With no questions, I'll look for a motion.

I got one for the first from Harry and a second from Tommy Heert. Any public comment, Heather. With no public comment, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Item passes 70. We'll move item C. Thank you, Sarah. First reading and public hearing of an ordinance approving standards for the care for recreation summer camp held at recreation centers for ages 5 through 13. Presentation made by recreation manager Jesse Beans. How do we say that? Bennis or Beans? Well, you're the mayor. You can say however. Oh, no. Oh, no. I don't want to be the mayor. That always got it wrong. Okay. Uh, Bennis. Bennis. That's how I wanted to say it. Anyway, Mr. Bennis, you're on.

Yes, sir. Uh, municipalities in order to be able to run a summer day camp without being a licensed daycare has to have a standard of care which mentions our policies and procedures which uh must be accessible to all participants and also mentions that we're not a licensed daycare and that we commit to not marketing ourselves as such. Any questions? So, this is a little bit of just standard policy and procedure we have to take. Brandon, would you maybe tell them why we have to take this? I think that's important. State law. Yeah, I'd like the reaction. Well, beyond I mean state law, just like Jesse said that we're not a daycare. Um I guess that's all all the clarification I would have unless you

Yeah, it's just all about transparency of what we are and what we're not. And we're not a daycare. We're not a daycare, especially to kids 5 through 13. Uh and by continuing to operate that the way that we are, it gives us the flexibility that we need to be able to run our program. Well, it's not an easy job and we thank y'all for doing it. For with that, I'll look there. Is there any questions from the DAS? If not, I'll look for a motion. I have a first from Karen. Second from Tommy Heert. All those is there any public comment? None. No public comment. All those in favor say I.

Any opposed? Item C passes 70. Thank you, Mr. Venice. Item D, first reading of public hearing of an ordinance for Z262, a request for a zone change from the light manufacturing zoning district to the general commercial zoning district for 13 tracks over 5.384 acres, generally located around 1297 to 1309 North Bryant Boulevard. Presentation made by planning and development services director Aaron Venoi.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council, Mr. Venuela. Uh, I'm just going to go with the Jesse Bennis mode instead of would you like to pass this and see if that works. Now, we do have a short presentation here. Uh, so thank you for reading that caption in, but this is a reszoning for this property just north of the Houston Heart Freeway on the west side of the property. um a property that when you see some of the pictures, you will uh recognize because this was an area that our storm water team uh and other folks have helped clean up over the years uh because there had been uh some transient citizens that had made campsites there over the time and now it's actually getting ready for development. So, it's very exciting. It is in the Black Share neighborhood. It is in district 4, Mr. Patrick Keley. The vision plan is commercial. It's approximately 5 acres and it's request to reszone from light manufacturing to general commercial. I put this Google map image in here um that kind of gives you a wider view. Of course, you can see uh Houston Hart down here, Bryant uh right here. Um and the subject property is right in this general location right there. But you have you have seen that property over the years uh just kind of sit there and it isn't on a major thoroughare. So getting it to develop uh is a is a major win for St. Angelo. So here uh this picture just off of West 11th looking to the north. You can see the cell tower back there. The one thing this property does have is actually has some really nice trees. Not sure what will happen to those with development, but um obviously have to move the property forward so it becomes a producing property for our community. Here on the left side is a vision plan. You can see that that area has been uh for the long term since 2000 been envisioned as commercial. You can see down here is more industrial and a transitional zone over here. Uh again on the right side is the current zoning. Uh the only property that's really kind of developed. There's the uh restaurant that's right there and there's a couple of homes down in this area that are looking to be redeveloped uh potentially

soon. Uh and so this area is going through some uh minor redevelopment. And this large property here that you can see the little bits and pieces that they put together is going to be a a nice property uh for our community to move forward with. Uh this is the plat that they have submitted. So they're actually this is Bryant here at the top. Uh 11th is going to be over on this side. So at the back there's going to be a lot number five. At the front there's going to be lot number three. And right here at the bottom will be lot number four. There's some utilities and some things that go through there. So that's kind of why they broke broke up the lots. Uh they will probably uh they're looking to get access uh from Tex DOT uh potentially as well as of course they'll have some access off of 11 West 11th. With that, the city staff recommends approval of this zone change from light manufacturing to general commercial at the properties uh 1297 to 1309 North Bryant. Planning Commission did uh hear this case and did recommend with a 50 vote to approve on February the 23rd. With that, I'll be happy to take any questions for this property in the past. Uh with that, it's Patrick, it's in your district. I'll let you kind of lead on this one if you have any questions or discussions.

No questions. I think it'll help clean it up and and develop that. So, I'm all for it. Any further questions? With all that, Patrick, you want to make a motion? I move to approve. Second. I have a first from Patrick. I'll give a second to Harry Thomas just because he did such a good job today. Is there any public comment on D? But no public comment. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Item passes 70. Thank you, Aaron. Here we go into item E. Consider resolution calling a joint public hearing of the city council and the planning commission establish alternative notice procedures regarding the following zoning ordinance sections. One, section 501, residential district standards. Two, section 314, residential structure types. Three, section 313, use table of zone of zoning ordinances. Four, section 511, off-site parking standards. Five, section 419, mobile food units. Six, section 211, historic overlay zone. And seven, section 212, river corridor district overlay zone, downtown district overlay zone and cultural district overlay zone of the zoning ordinance. Presentation made by planning and services development director Aaron Venoy.

Thank you again, mayor. Um, as you read all of that in, uh, seems like every mayor gets to do that at least once a year. So you've got your one time this year to read something that large in but the planning division is bringing forward uh some initiatives that we are requesting to have a joint meeting which is allowable under the state law. Um and it allows for efficiencies. Basically it reduces the number of notices that you have to send out and allows for the planning commission and city council to meet at one time and to have a public discussion about these items. So, as you see on your agenda further down, we have those three items that we're going to discuss with you individually of what the content of those items are, this item is to request a joint meeting and an alternative notice, which means we would notice in the newspaper and we would publish on our website. They say you have to do two different forms of notices and that has satisfied that law ever for about four years now. We've done this every year. Um, you it looks like we're modifying a lot of sections. Our goal is to help some flexibility in our residential zoning ordinance where we're a little restrictive on lot sizes. Our development community has come and said we need a little bit narrower lot sizes and we've gone and tried to make some accommodations and talking with our building official uh Miss Charlie Kimp. One of the challenges in our zoning ordinance, we don't really think about the building code very often, but it doesn't really work together when we have a zoning district that has five or six structure types allowed in one zoning district because each structure type may have a different separation in the building code. And so what we tried to do is expand the offerings and still allow the structure types but let them be zoning dependent if that makes sense. And we'll have more information on that. Um but this this item here item E is really to request the joint planning commission and the city council meeting

and we are looking at um April 21st that we would have that here in these chambers. We would notice uh at least 15 days in advance uh in newspaper as well as on the website. We would have all the background information available, all the ordinance, the red lines. You've actually will see the red lines today uh for the public. Uh we've been doing meetings on these for about seven months now. Uh our staff team has done a great job of reaching out to different groups and having a diverse committee uh looking at these things. And so I'm very excited about that uh for each one of these items that'll be coming up. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions on item E about a joint meeting on April the 21st and our alternative notice.

So Aaron, let me clarify. Your ask on this is strictly for us to make a motion and approve a meeting on April 21st. It's going to cover these topics. That is correct. And an alternative notice uh allowance for that. All right. And then we're going to get into some of these topics in depth with additional items. That is correct. All right. So, does any does everybody understand that? Is that one clear? Is there any questions from the D? With that, I'll look for a motion. I have a couple questions. All right. Patrick's got some questions. Um, so the alternative versus traditional notice procedures, what would be the traditional that you would have to do?

Well, as as you see that we're opening up section 501. That means anyone that's zoned residential would have to get a paper notice. And that's very costly for our citizens to pay for that, for everyone to get a notice. So any one of those items that you open up there that has to do with a zoning district, you have to notice them individually by our traditional standards. So, if you think of the last zoning uh case that we had, we have a 200t buffer around there that we would notice. Well, that makes reasonable sense for that specific property. When you're doing such large changes, and I shouldn't say large change, but you're doing such large areas and trying to add zoning districts, it impacts a lot more people. And so, one thing I will say is that we're not zone reszoning anyone's property through this process. And we'll talk about that more uh on the other items. And we're not changing anyone's current zoning, but we are required to notice them that we are changing our zoning ordinance and it can affect residential zoning overall.

Um on the the joint meeting besides that, is that um it's the same just efficiency just instead of going to one group and saying the same things and going to the next group, we're just going to put us all together. That way we can all kind of ask our questions and vet it out and Yes, sir. That is correct. And uh we've actually been talking about this for months in front of the development task force. We've actually talked about it in planning commission one time before. We're planning to talk about it again this next planning commission. We've talked about it. This is the second time we've talked about these items in front of city council. So we're making sure that we're getting the public involved and and notice that that through our different channels. This will take an official notice at that point because it will take official actions to change those laws at that point.

Gotcha. And then where are the red line items you were talking about? They should be in our background. Yes. On the on the next stuff because it's not on this one. So I I know we loaded our I saw them in mine. So they're there. Okay. Yeah. Download. They're there. Perfect. That's all I got. All right. So just want Aaron, we've done it this way for what? Four years. Yes, sir. All right. With that, any questions? Any additional questions? No, sir. All right. I'll look for a motion. I have a first. I have a first from Tommy Heert. Second. I have a second from Joseph. Any public comment, Heather? Monica Ramos. Monica Ramos.

I was just going to ask what the historic overlay in the downtown district topics were about, but I think Erin's already clarified that that that'll be discussed on April 21st. So, I'll just um sit and wait until then and find out more about that. Thank you. Thank you, Monica. Any more public comment? Heather Rocky

Rocky morning, Rocky Templan, single member, District 6. Uh the only question I had really was when we do have this meeting on the 21st when I was at the last one it was a little confusing on who we were talking to whether we were talking to planning or we were talking to the council and then in what order and then who is the answer and how it worked. So, I would just like to make sure on this meeting that everybody kind of knows from the audience who they're going to speak to, if they're speaking to everybody, but if council can ask a question and planning at the same time or it's how what the order is going to be.

So, your ask is to make sure we have a defined procedure and outline for this April 21st meeting. That'd be great. We'll do that, Rocky. With no more with no more public comment, we'll look to take a vote. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Item E passes 70. Now we'll move to item F, discussion and direction for modification to the mobile food unit section 419 of the zoning ordinance presented by planning and development service director Aaron Venoy.

Thank you again, Mayor. Uh Aaron Venoy, director of planning development services. So we had a group that came to us back in the summer uh talking about the mobile food units um and some of the restrictions that we have in the zoning ordinance on them. At the same time, the state legislature was also looking at some guidelines on how health departments uh and food permits interact with mobile food units. And so I've been working with uh Sandra Via Rial and uh some of her staff on trying to make sure our zoning ordinance and the mobile food unit items are congruent, as well as looking at things that could help our mobile food units maybe have some more access to different areas. uh in the community. Um you know, this morning was uh the SBD the the small business development center day. Well, our mobile food units are small businesses and they come to the table often and do lots of events for our community. They bring in tourism. They do a lot of things that really help uh our community. And so these uh ordinance updates uh we do have the red line that's uh in the background information. uh is to update uh and meet the state guidelines and allow for flexibility in locations. So right now uh our mobile food units are basically asking can we be on the same level as a restaurant who does catering in a in a residential area. So you have a graduation party, you have a birthday party, mobile food units are specifically prohibited from going to those residential areas, but a brickandmortar restaurant can go and set up and do that. they're just asking to be on the pl same playing field. Now, sometimes that can be a concern for our neighborhoods of, well, if they're there all the time, that's a problem. Well, that's not their intent, but we tried to write some things in there that would

limit, if you will, where how often they could come into neighborhoods. And so in this residential allowances, uh, we said, uh, for 6 hours in a 24-h hour period, uh, up to three times per year. Now, that one can be very tricky because are we talking about on a private property? Are we talking about in the rightway? Are we talking about a baseball field? Are we talking about where? And so, I think we need to vet that out just a little bit more to see where and and get that because you need specity, but you also need flexibility. And so we want to make sure that we're taking care of our residential residents as well as our mobile food unit. Um we also put in there if it's over three times a year and say maybe it's at a specific uh venue that they get an approved city council via a special permit. They can come to council ask for a special permit say hey we want to set up there. This is our fourth time this year to do it because it's productive or whatever. We'd find a way to to have them have that ability to come and ask. doesn't mean it's allowed by right, but they can come and ask. Other options are just simply to allow them in residential areas. Uh the other options could be allow more times per year. And so I'm going to stop at this point and just kind of ask about because everything else talks about some commercial areas and things. I really want to know about residential allowances of where we think our mobile food units could, should what makes sense. Now, as many of you know, a lot of our parks are are zoned residential districts. Um, so that kind of says, "Okay, well, we want you in our parks because there might be some people there that would like that, but we're zone residential. You can't go there right now." Which is why we reszoned the park on um uh on 29th. Uh we did it for the splash pad, but we also did neighborhood commercial so that mobile food units could go and set up there by right. they wouldn't have to be breaking

the law by going and setting up there uh periodically. So, mayor, I'd like to ask, do you or anyone on the dis have any questions about residential? Any suggestions or any items on the residential uses for mobile food units? I think we'll have several. Um, something I want to do is look right there. Heather, do we have any public comment on this item where there might be food truck owners or somebody that could make some content right now? And Brandon, is that legal for us to look for this? I mean, just so we kind of hear their side as we go on. Sure. Ju just one public comment. Monica Ramos. Monica, are you good?

Yeah. And the reason I do this is, you know, we're talking about residential right here, not commercial, but the food trucks cover all of it. And so, we're trying to make something that's not difficult. What we hear mainly from our people is how difficult it is. And we're just trying to and I think planning and development has done a good job of trying to remove the headwinds and obstacles to make something like this happen. With that, I want input from you, Monica, on what you see.

Okay. I might be stepping up here a little bit early, but I'm Monica Ramos, a downtown um director and Erin might have more in his presentation. So, I don't really have a lot to comment on the residential part, but for the downtown area, that's where I do have some. So, let's table you for a minute till we come back up with that commercial part.

Okay. All right. Sorry about that. So, I'll say I mean Patrick, you've got kids and I mean I have seen neighbors and people come up and want to have a food truck because they don't want to feed 30 kids and I don't have a problem with that. But there's issues of safety when you put a food truck in a street. Where can you get by? If it's on your own personal property, I don't have a problem with that. Um the worst thing sometimes with a food truck is the food truck can't control the trash that the people that patronize it leave laying around. But with with that in mind, um 6 hours in a 24-hour period, I think that's negotiable. I think that's fine. Um some parties last longer than that. Three times a year, I think if it goes more than three times a year, somebody should have a commercial issue. Um and then whether it has to be by a special permit. I mean, can you get one of these online? I mean, can you get how quick is it to get a permit? Say if Patrick calls up and the kids are wanting to have a party and somebody's moved it to his house and their house got something happened. You have to do some planning because you'd have to actually come in front of city council to make a presentation of why it's not just an administrative decision. Now, that could be rethought. Uh doesn't have to be a city council, but we do special permits through city council through for events, if you will, right? Um there could be a a separate process that went through that. But that that's kind of the challenge for staff at times is all right when is it appropriate for administrative to make that decision? When is it time for it to go to a an appointed board or an elected board to make that decision for a land use?

So my question here is if we go with what's presented and we find out in hindsight we did something that was harmful or not beneficial, how hard is it to go back and change? Probably have to do the meeting. Yeah, we we would have to change the ordinance to Yeah. Okay. So, we better get this right the first time. That's why this is the discussion phase of all right, are we are we headed in the right direction or do we need to rethink some things so that we can make sure that we're hitting the right mark? So, in April 21st, we have we have a general consensus of what we want to do.

So, what we're doing today is not a decision that's going to make those changes. Those have to go to the April 21st meeting to make sure everybody's clear. With that, I'll open it up to the dice. Tommy Heert. Yes. Um Erin, I don't think you said have you had some input from the the mobile food unit folks and this would maybe work for them and I don't want to read that in there if it's not there, but is that accurate?

Yes, we've been meeting with them about monthly for the last four to five months. Uh and they've been talking about different items and things like this. And this is one of the items that did come up is being allowed to be in residential. and they've had the red line items for about 2 and 1/2 months and they they've been a very appreciative of us trying to make some changes and they think these are changes that they can work with. So do we are we under some kind of constraint that says they have to come to council. Is that the way the ordinance is currently written? um or are is that something we can deal with and and and I'll say finalize it for the first reading or well the first draft or first run at this. Um yes, it is we wrote it that way just mirroring the special permit process. Okay, it does not have to be that way. There's nothing in the ordinance today because today they're excluded from residential areas. They couldn't even come and ask. Um, so we could rethink that if that's something that you want at a lower level to make that decision. Um,

did they did did your mobile food vendor uh folks have any comment on having to come before council to receive that that special permit to do that?

No, they did not. Uh, and it's probably because three times a year, particularly if you're going to a specific property, that's that's quite often. I mean, I know that's once a quarter, if you will, but uh if you do, if you're a mobile food unit and it's just for a family, for a reunion or for something, that's not happening often. Now, the other areas might be uh dealing with maybe some of our park areas and things like that. And maybe we have a special provision for if you're in a park area that there's this may not apply even if the park is zoned residential. It's hard to tell because all of our parks are a little different. uh you you know our parks out at the lake are different than our parks that are um embedded within our neighborhoods.

Well, and and the neighborhoods could create the issue. The mayor referenced some of those. I understand that. But also somehow just doesn't feel warm and fuzzy to me to make them come before city council to get a permit simply to have a mobile food unit for a birthday party at the house. And that would be after they did three times a year. So it'd be allowed by right for up to three times. Then if they wanted to do it for the fourth time, okay, they would have to come forward and whether that's city council, planning commission, admin, you know, someone else that makes that decision as a joint decision. Then thank you for unthickening my thick head.

Can I ask a question? Yes. So, are we saying that three times is tied to a specific property or just residential zones in general? Because that's how I was reading it. And that's a good question. Um, because is it tied to a single property? I think our minds go to it's tied to a single property, but that is not how it reads currently. It seems to imply that we would the way we wrote it, it' be going into residential areas three times a year, right?

Um, and so I to have any clarification on that would be helpful. Um, one of one of the things I always struggle with, and I'll just be very transparent here, is trying to write ordinances that are still enforcable. Because if you just say it's for the zoning district, for, you know, anywhere there's RS1, and that's the majority of our community, probably 40% of our zoning is RS1. We won't ever know. The city government will not know if someone has gone to that three times a year, six times a year, 10 times a year until there are complaints. Whereas it's per property and you have okay, three per property, then your neighbors will probably say something fairly quickly uh at some point. If it's a if it's a real nuisance by noise, light, whatever the case may be. Um,

on a first blush, for me, it it makes more sense to have it u property specific as opposed to zoning district specific. Uh, for that very reason, Erin, it from an enforcability standpoint. That that's my shoot from the hip reaction. I'll shut up. Phil,

I had the same concern. Is that property specific or area? Um I we used to live on 44th Street right by the little league the Lake View Little League fields and uh used to Chick-fil-A would set up there for the high school kids. Um also you had little league that happen. I understand having them at a little league function. That's perfect. It's what they need to have that it helps. So again, I'm I'm glad we're looking at this for we need to have it specific, but yet have the ability to do that because I again, we we lived right across that street from that. You you didn't want it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You you understood because we live by Little Leaguefield that it would happen. So

yes, um I I think everything's looking good on the right direction. And I did have exactly the same concerns about the specific property versus an area and the residential. So, and and I think you might we might want to look at the parks or things like that as changing that or I I don't know. You you know what I'm saying? So, that's all I have. Harry,

well, I think uh Mr. Heert and Mr. yourself have already said a lot that goes there. Uh the only concern I might have about residential allowances would be that some streets street I live on is very very narrow and it' be very difficult for a food truck to park there and still get traffic down it. Uh but I think limiting up to three times a year is is is a great opportunity. Uh I agree with Joe. Uh, I'd like to see something different for parks. Uh, I don't know how we do that, but uh, because there are several parks in the community, I think that could util utilize that and I think citizens will take advantage of that. Uh, but I think we're, you know, we're headed in the right direction as as long as we can limit it three times to a specific property. Uh, and then look at, uh, breaking out the parks portion. Okay. Roger.

What are snow cone trucks considered?

Well, they are considered a mobile food unit because they serve ice and ice is a food in the state of Texas. They are currently exempt and are allowed to go into those areas into residential areas. Uh those that serve other types of food. So, ice cream trucks and snow cone trucks were allowed to go into residential areas. Uh, and those are the ones that are typically the ones that are maybe, I would say, patrolling the streets, seeing if people will come out and, you know, neighborhood kids come and and get something. The group that, and we've been talking to groups that include those folks, but these are folks that are looking at, well, how can I go and set up at a person's private property and serve them, their family, whatever it may be. Um, while I think we would write it to where they could go into a public space, whether that's in the public right ofway, and find a way to do that. So, you know, Councilman's Thomas comment is is safety is very important uh in our neighborhoods for all of our citizens, whether they're children, elderly, or whoever. And if you have a mobile food unit that's parked there and not allowing traffic to get by, that that can be very challenging because folks in their vehicle get very frustrated. They want to get around. they're not really maybe paying as attention as they should. And so maybe we need to look at all right does it need to be a certain size street? Then you have to think about well are mobile food units going to be considering well that's a 28ft road instead of a 40ft road. They're probably not. So we're trying to get through all that minutia stuff and say what's the simplest thing that works for them as well as our citizens at large

on um on these trucks in these residential areas. Is it is the intent that anyone's going to be allowed to come up and buy food or is it just to serve them like a caterer?

Well, that they they've talked about both. The groups did. I think their major intent is to be similar to a caterer to do events at a private uh residence or within that zoning district. I think there are opportunities particularly around parks um that might be zoned that might be currently zoned residential uh or one of the residential classifications. Uh we have special permissions in our ordinance already for multifamily. And so if it's an apartment complex that they can already go there with the permission of the apartment complex. And so I think looking at do we res do we limit this to um maybe not the zoning district but the housing, you know, is this by a single family house, duplex, whatever. Are you on the private property? Are you on the right of way? I think we just need to work through that just a little bit more. So if you have any suggestions, we we're certainly open to those.

You're the expert. That's just that's something. And so looking at it right, I I I want to support any small business. Uh restaurants have a super high rate of failure. So mobile food units have kind of helped fix that because they're a lot lower cost to run. So I'm all for that and and the little leagues, the parks, all that would be a great spot. It would just uh to help alleviate people having to go somewhere to get food. So I'm all for that, but I want to make sure it's done responsibly.

Um looking at this, so one was and which already been talked about, is it per residence or per food truck? two, um, looking at this, what's to say a food truck couldn't go to one house three times and the next house three times and sell to the public and be a restaurant on one block and just keep going down the street. Now, I'd assume the residents would have to, you know, allow them things like that. So, some of it might be vetted out, but that's kind of what I'm looking at. What's what's the downfalls because like we talked about, once we put it in stone,

it's going to be real hard to change and it's it could cause a big inconvenience for a lot of people. Um, so I think that's something to look at is um kind of how often in in a neighborhood or whatever it needs to be. If we could fix some of it with this administrative permits where they've got to come and say and you look at the street size and say, "Well, it's got to be 28 ft." No, that one's 20. So, sorry, you can't do it on that one. Make it where they can have it as fast as possible, maybe where it doesn't have to come in front of council. Yeah.

Um, that's something, you know, to maybe look at. Okay. Um, and I think that was the main questions as far as uh if it was going to be kind of commercial or just catering. Um, that's all I got so far. Thank you, Ken.

Uh, I I think Patrick is correct in asking that question about about multiple uses in a small area. So, maybe there's a way to flag that in the permitting process. I'm not sure. But maybe something to look at. And are we correct to assume is it correct to assume that residential uses of food trucks are subject to the same existing ordinances that govern noise for example? Yes, they are. Lighting u noise, lighting, all the nuisance type things. Yes, they are. So they have to shut it down at 10 o'clock. They have to Yes, ma'am.

Okay, great. Erin. Uh, so enforcability is just would be based on the complainant. Yes, ma'am. That's that's usually the way for most of our items. Uh, but mobile food units for sure. And so that's that's one of our questions is is it do we open it up and to see if people will start having complaints because we don't have a history of those now, but technically now they're not supposed to be in those areas. Well, yeah. because I mean if they if they don't do the the three, they just don't go get a permit, right? Um what would the violation entail?

Well, it depends on what the violation is. Obviously, it could be one of those nuisance violations of noise or lighting, things like that, or is it a violation of where they're actually located under the zoning ordinance? So, currently, if they were to go set up on a a residential zone property or in the rideway, they're in violation. Now, they could do a remedy by removing themselves, do those types of things, saying, "Okay, I'm not going to come back there." They basically get a a warning saying, "Here's the rules. Please don't do that again." Ultimately, they could get a citation that would go through municipal court. Uh, ultimately, that would be the the the violation or the or the result, and then it's up to the mun municipal court on what penalties or fees that they would assess.

Oh, so we don't we don't say that it's a $500 violation. That's based on municipal court. That's the provision for is $500. Um they can go up to 2,000 for like health and safety type stuff which this wouldn't be that. But um it'll be usually lower than that 500 for something like this, but I can't tell you the exact amount. Well, you know, we don't want to pick it to death, but we still want to be prudent on it. But thank you, Erin. Appreciate it.

Okay. Well, I'll certainly look at those items, mayor, uh that many of the council members have mentioned and make sure that we bring that forward through planning commission of um discussion of having some more specific as well as talking with the mobile food vendors again and and our housing committee on what they what they think as well. So, let's move on to some commercial things. I've got uh two slides that deal with commercial. Uh, one of the things that deals with the state guidelines is, uh, the local health department will no longer be permitting mobile food units. They're not required to get a a permit. They're required to get one from the state. So, that limits the amount of times that they may come to the city government for something or they could come from another city and just come into our community and start operating. Um, so in our thing, we we talk about um it had to do more with our design districts about if they were locating um for three days consecutively on a private property, then they had to they had to move. They had to be mobile. Well, the state law is now saying that they basically have to be mobile all the time. They can sit somewhere, but they can't have hard connections to plumbing, electrical, those types of things. And so really that's no longer needed in our zoning ordinance to try to regulate that as well. So we're trying to remove that. Um within the commercial if you're an established food establishment and that really means a brickandmortar food establishment there's a separation distance of 100 ft. Now our current ordinance does not talk about is that on private property or is that in the rightway. My personal belief is that means that's in the right ofway. You shouldn't set up within 50 feet of a current food establishment. Now, if you wanted to spend the money and buy the private property beside that

um food establishment that's permanent and it's zoned the right being general commercial, why can you not have a mobile food unit there? I mean, it's just two competing businesses. Happens all the time. Again, right away is different. If you own an establishment and Aaron's Burgers comes and parks right in front of you and you start selling your burgers there, that's probably a problem saying the city's allowed that. So, we recognize there should be some separation distance there. Um, again, that's that's kind of those last two there. Um, currently our we prohibit mobile food units from going to schools. We have actually heard from the schools they want them to come because that gives their kids some different options whether that's public school, private school, charter school. So we've done that but again I think that talking about as many of youall mentioned even with the residential is that on a private piece of property or is that in the right of way? And so we're trying to write it both that you know in the right of way you got to be further away. Um, if you're if you're wanting to go onto the school and you have the school's permissions, we would allow that. Again, a lot of our schools are residentially zoned. So, similar to the parks, that may be some way that we write that in for the parks that even though it's residentially zone, they're allowed in parks. Um, and so now in the the the design and historic review commission's purview under section 211 and section 212 when we wrote it, we wanted design control over the mobile food units that they had to go through a process. Well, what we've learned is when we have a temporary event and that has mobile food units, whether it's in the ride ofway or on private parking, we have not sent one of those through DHRC. But our ordinances say that, but we

haven't done that in eight years that that ordinance has been there. What DHRC design and historic review commission is about is about architectural protection of the structures that are there and an overall feel of what that district whether it's historic district, downtown district, cultural district is. And so we believe that if you're not going to be there permanently, you're coming for a temporary event, DHRC doesn't need to look at you as a mobile food unit. So, we're asking to take that out of those two sections. We could have done it administratively, but again, not a single person came to us. It was very laborsome. It was not easy process. By the time they even got their paperwork turned in, the event was done. And we've re received zero complaints about mobile food units being in those design districts and causing problems on the design issues. So, that that's what we're looking at removing. If you're still going to be by brick and mortar or you plan on parking on that property for long term because you own the property and improvements. Yes. Then we'll say, "All right, design review and historic commission has some say of what should what it should look like. If you start putting up tables and tents and all these things, they want to make sure that you're fitting in within that design criteria for that design district." I think that's everything except for going over food truck parks, which is a whole section that we don't have in our ordinance. So, mayor, I'd like to just ask, is there anything in the commercial items um that we would like to discuss individually?

Sure, Erin, as we hit this. So, right now, do we have a 100 foot separation between a food truck and a commercial restaurant? Yes, we do. And I think this is where I'll bring Monica back up to give us some input on that because I've gotten a few calls from restaurant owners and moving it to 50 feet or changing that.

Kind of want to know where that comes from and the catalyst behind that. Well, I think the the idea is that there is I mean to own a brick and mortar, you've you've done a lot of investment uh to be there at that space uh and to have a competing business come and be within a certain distance that is not paying for the piece of property that they're sitting on. That that means and that's why I wrote it in the right of way that you're on a public piece of property doing the same business. that can be challenging maybe. Um I do think it's different if it's private property. Um I think that that comes down to all right if you've got two private entities competing against each other. Now it's been a long time since I've been up past 10:30 at night. But if you ever go downtown and when all the restaurants are closed, we have mobile food units sitting within the 100 foot separation distance of many of these places. and we have not been receiving any complaints about that. So, we're trying to write it in a way that that allows them to be compliant and not illegal. And that's one of the genesis of this. And some of that, I mean, you have some that sit right up in front of the of say a bar facility. Well, a bar facility is an a food establishment. Now, maybe we write it that it doesn't include those types, but if are you a restaurant and a bar, it gets a little fuzzy at some points. And so we're trying to find what is the right thing for our community.

I sometimes in knowing the history of some of the people and the arguments and discussions we've had over the years um and and changes this brings to it, but always have concern if somebody gets bitter or a little bit of hatred and they roll up a food truck right in front of somebody's front door at 50 feet. By the time you put a waiting line 20 feet and the encroachment gets all the way to it, I personally am not in favor of lowering the 100 feet to 50 feet. But I'm just one here and I need input from everybody and Monica, that's why I'm asking you to maybe come give us a little bit of input on this because I know you got phone calls on this one, too.

Well, yeah. So, I thank Erin for allowing me into these meetings because really food trucks aren't anything that's favorable in downtown districts. However, times are changing. I wanted to find a way to compromise here um to not necessarily allow food trucks just park all along the core of our downtown and pile up, but give them a little bit of freedom to help boost traffic in downtown. I do think that there's a way to incorporate food trucks to where there's a designated location as we've been discussing um for food trucks to where downtown traffic can still walk and traverse to those areas. Um, I've talked to other restaurants as well, um, a few others, and they're good with it. Um, because as Aaron mentioned, I think

they're good with what, the 50 foot or the 100 foot?

50 foot. Because they would still need permission. Correct, Aaron? They would still need permission from the restaurants nearby. And if not, that's what I would propose is having the permission from those restaurants because that's how it stands right now. 100 feet with permission from the restaurant is from my understanding from reading the ordinance as it sits presently. Um, but there's other restaurants that are good with having the food trucks after hours after they close because I think most of the restaurants do close like at 9 or 10. So, it's not going to affect their traffic. Um, as far as having the food trucks, I know it could potentially have a food truck that could develop and eventually fill a space in downtown, but let's look at it as we don't want vacant spaces. So, we don't want nothing but food trucks and then people shying away from having a brick and mortar. We would rather have these vacancies filled with a restaurant. So, I think that's where the argument lies here with what's the difference with having a restaurant next to a restaurant? Well, at least that's filling a void and it's even playing field there and they become community partners whereas food truck can get up and leave um at any time. They don't have to stay there. So, they're not quite fully invested in our downtown community. Um but I would think that 50 ft is is fair and I have heard from other restaurants because that is how it stands today and there are no um disagreements that I've heard of or any calls as far as that goes right now. Does it stand at 50 feet or 100 feet? It's

100 right now. It's 100 right now. So, the suggestion there is going down to 50. Um, my concern is when some people get predatory. I know a commercial restaurant pays property tax. They have to have a certain number of, you know, parking spaces they have to take care of. They clean up the trash. They take care of all that. I'm just saying that's something that I'm going to focus on and ask more questions. But, um, with that right now, does anybody have any questions for Monica? Monica, do you have anything else you want to add?

I mean, I agree with you, too. And I today's section is talking about the ordinance here, but like I said, as we move forward to having designated locations, there are some other concerns that we'd want to be sure and clear up. And I don't know if that involves this ordinance or if that's something else. Aaron, I'm going to refer to you because I don't know if that's going to be mentioned today. So, I might be we'll probably mention it when the food when I go over the food truck park. Okay. Is that on today's agenda? Is that being today? Okay. Monica, I think Tommy Heert has a question. Monica. Okay. I'll get to you, Mary. Wait a minute. I got Tommy first.

Um, if if you don't mind, when you interact with your uh downtown folks, uh, the specifically the the restaurant tours that that have bricks and a brick and mortar place. if if you don't mind specifically asking them about the 50 to 100 foot I if if they have any heartburn with either one or both or do they prefer one or the other? Um you said you hadn't really had any complaints. Um but I'd be interested how many how many food establishments do you have in your downtown area?

I believe off the top of my head there's about eight. I could name them off right now, but yeah, it's not very many, so that would be easy to call them all. Yeah, I was gonna say that that might be helpful even for Aaron and his uh his his folks as they work through this. Um right now, I think I'm with the mayor on this that 50 feet may be a little close, but again, I'm I'm open to hearing more if if the folks downtown don't seem to have a real problem with that. It's not a final. No, it's not a final discussion today. If you don't mind when you talk to them to ask them. I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

All right, Mary, you had a question. Monica, that I really dove exactly what Tommy was saying. I'm not trying to add more work to you. Uh, but since you do have your finger on the pulse of downtown certainly more than we do, if you just pretend today's Christmas Day, what what would be a plan that you would like to see or what might fit? You're more aware of the spaces and what have you, uh, and without, you know, giving you homework, but what would be your your best plan?

Well, like I said, I'm willing to go into a compromise. And so 100 ft really what was going to happen was trying to strike out 100 ft and not have any distance requirements at all. So to compromise, let's cut that in half and say 50 ft. Well, or even 75, you know, but u I think that'll work. Get the best best people with these ideas and then we'll work it out. Yeah. And I'll have all the complaints directed to Harry. There you go. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, Aaron, continue, please.

All right, so as Monica alluded to, we're actually working on a potential public private partnership for finding a mobile food truck park downtown. We're working with the county as well. Um, but one thing that we've noticed is that we don't have any ordinances in our zoning ordinance that talks about what a food truck park needs. Uh, and there's been those that have come forward have said, "Well, you're making me be at a much higher standard than most food trucks parks around the state." So, we started looking at that saying, "All right, well, where do we need to where do we need to create one of these?" uh and not really create but really kind of borrow some other jurisdictions language so that we have something that's reasonable in our community. Uh so the point of this part is just adding the section below the 419 uh is to have uh reasonable requirements and create a standard uh allowed as a primary use in neighborhood commercial, general commercial, general commercial, heavy commercial and it probably should have also just be heavy commercial and then light manufacturing. What we found is that there are times uh food trucks go to light manufacturing facilities and their their food truck parked there. Uh which is fine for, you know, for a temporary period. Um but we want to make sure that they're allowed to go and do that and not be prohibited. uh allowed as it as a mixeduse and adjacent to other permanent retail establishments. They would require to have an on-site manager if they were a food truck park that there's somebody managing the site which should help deal with noise, lighting, trash, those types of things. They're required to have restrooms. Uh if they meet the TABC rules and they meet the proper zoning, they could sell alcohol at those food truck parks. um if they're outside of the central business district, they would be required to uh provide parking at the at the current standards. And again, that they'd need to comply with noise, signage, and lighting. They would need to comply with floodplane development,

and they'd need to comply with any other site plan development requirements. The correct approaches, the um you know, if they have really tall lights, how tall can those lights be? Where do they you know, do they need to have detention or retention for storm water? because normally those are big parking lots or things like that. Um, and so that's kind of where we're headed with our food truck parks uh stuff right now. Again, I have a red line, not really a red line, but a brand new proposal within the background information. Um, these are are new things. Uh, we have had some that are looking at doing food truck parks within our community. uh and we're trying to find that uh the right regulations for them so they can still manage and still do what they want to do. With that, do you have any questions on anything else on mobile food items?

Aaron, I think you've thrown a lot out in front of us and we have to understand today is not a final, but today's talk about gathering up ideas, I'd encourage any council people or any citizens if you have any input to get it to Aaron Venoy, your email and park plan. We'll throw Ray in there. Make Ray take some of those calls, too. Yes, that'd be great. Long story short, I think you brought forward a lot of Are there any additional comments up here? All right, I'll look to take a motion. There's there's no motion needed. This is just a discussion and direction item. I'd like not an action item. So, we can move to the next one, sir. All right. So, we'll close item F and move to G.

Discussion and direction for modification to the land development and subdivision ordinance to impact affordability of housing and development. Presentation by director of operations Patrick Fareric and senior planner Austin Reid. Thank you and good morning everyone. My name is Austin Reid. I'm a senior planner with the city. And today we're going to be going over some changes to the LDSO or land development and subdivision ordinance. And so for those of you who don't know, the LDSO is what controls um how we get our infrastructure. It's what applies to people who are subdividing their property or developing it in some major way. And so kind of the purpose of this whole conversation was to research changes that could promote affordability and consistency through the LDSO. And what we did was we formed a committee and within this committee we had a mix of developers, city staff and some appointed officials. Um this committee met on a monthly basis roughly from August of last year until February of this year. And we presented some of these discussions as well at planning commission and development task force. So some of the goals we laid out for this committee were to one promote affordable development through revised standards relating to infrastructure requirements and design guidelines. Um, from there we wanted to simplify development through consistency within and across our own ordinance. And then finally, as a result of the other two, we hoped that it would promote affordable housing and infill. A little more specific, these objectives, this is kind of our approach really, um, was to first identify items that could be outdated, unnecessary, complicated, or incompatible. Um, from there we wanted to research solutions to those issues by talking with the community, the committee that we formed and maybe taking a look at what other communities were doing as well. And then after that, we were to draft amendments and bring them to the planning commission and city council. And I think of course that's where we are today. So the question is um how do we bring down the cost of land development? And to answer that question, first you have to look at some of the primary factors that drive land development costs. And

so this includes things like labor, materials, uh you have your utilities like water and sewer. Um you have storm water, you also have streets. And so these top five items are things that aren't easily waved or controlled by the city. Um one thing that we honed in early on these discussions was that streets was something that we did have a little more control over. One thing that we heard from others and even those visiting our community is that St. Angelo has very wide streets in some places. Um we currently require 40 ft of paving width for a new local road. And so we took a look at what other cities about our size or um similar communities were doing. And you can kind of see it's a spectrum that starts at about 30 ft for a new local road and worked its way upwards. And we're kind of at the end of that spectrum. Um I also have here a chart kind of showing our plat variance data. These are plats and variances that went before the planning commission. And this is kind of telling you how often um the specs of our roads are varied as in um the width and curbon gutter and things like that. And so this is between 2020 and August of 2025. And what you can see is that we receive a lot of plat variance requests but they are also overwhelmingly approved. And so sometimes this can indicate the need for some sort of change. So really the core of what we talked about in this committee and over the um the last six months or so was two tables within the LDSO. This first table controls rideway widths, the amount of rideaway that we get for our streets when someone is going through an LDSO related process. And so really we kind of went back and forth on what you see within this chart. We kind of adjusted the figures. We talked about maybe standardizing it and making it obsolete all together. But really what we heard at the end of the day was that rightway isn't often the issue. it's not really a barrier to development. So, we didn't really want to fix something that wasn't broken. Um, that being said, we did still clear up some of the language here. This left column, um, it did used to read standard width. It will now read new street width. That's how we were treating it anyways. And the same for the right table. It will now, um, say

existing street width. We've also scrapped the designation for local rural streets as it wasn't really being used by staff in any way. So, this second table is what actually controls our paving widths. Um this is most of our discussion and so we did clear up that language for the columns. Again it's the same thing. Um for local streets as I said before it was the requirement was 40 ft for a new local street or 36 ft with the sidewalk. Um we have come through and just made that a flat 36 ft with no sidewalk required. Um if you move a little a little bit to the right there um an existing local road. Um they were required to be 26 ft minimum. Um that is still true in a lot of areas, but we have come through and allowed uh existing local roads specifically within the city's designated infill area to remain as low as 20 ft. Um in no circumstances, however, should a road less than 20 ft be approved or varied in any way. And so for new minor collector streets, we kind of gave them the same treatment as new local streets where we brought it down just to a flat 40 ft with no sidewalk required where it was required before. One more thing, we kind of cleared up some of the language around sidewalks. I think there was some confusion about how and where sidewalks were being required. And so we cleared up some of that language, no longer required near um quote unquote commercial developments and churches. Um they're still required within 300 ft of schools and parks. Uh now more specifically measured as a direct path along a budding street rideway from the nearest point of the new development. So hopefully that allows us to make some more consistent decisions on sidewalks and be more predictable for the uh developers. And that's all I had for my portion. I think Patrick's going to come up in a second to talk about a couple items he had, but did you guys have any questions for me?

Austin, let me go ahead and start. Number one, thanks for tackling this. It's a great time. Glad you Is this your first maiden voyage presentation up here? Yes, sir. All right. Well, welcome to the bench today. It's always not a pleasant place, but Well, these are these are heated topics. All right. We have a lot of developers and a lot of um real estate people and sometimes the width and we're in discussions right now with other people as far as whether it should be a two-lane or a fourlane. But what we look for and I would say as far as um developers and realtors and council, we look for consistency. Y

all right. We don't want to grant just a small thing, but we want to be consistent and that way people that are doing plannings or planning items and developments know what to expect when they come in. And with that, I want to thank you for the presentation. I'll open it up to the DAS right now if there's any questions. Mary, if you got any Karen, no idea. Patri quick question. Sure. You showed the slide where it showed back a few more those the variations variances approved. Is that for street width? Yes. Um that does include some miscellaneous variances but 90% of those are street width or street curb and gutter things like that.

So quick question. If if we have like two lots that are inside of a already developed street Mhm. yet they have to have that width, new width, even though the whole street's already developed. Are those included in this? Because I mean that could skew some of the numbers as well in my opinion because that was something that would come across ours when I was on planning is okay, we have a lot in the middle that hadn't been developed for ever, but yet everything else is right. Yet standards say it has to be a certain width of the street. We're not going to make them pave two feet on that street from the rest of us. Not that way.

Yes, sir. Absolutely. Yeah, this list is pretty comprehensive. It does include um variances that were received like that, but we can hone in on these numbers and have them better for the next time we hear this. No, I just uh that is out there and and street width and sidewalks was a major deal when I was on planning. We went through it many times, good and bad and fun. So, I'm glad we're digging into it. I just want to make sure we're going down the right hole and and and doing the right thing. Yes, sir. That that's all I had. He assume Patrick may be going to talk about just in terms of cost uh street width. Is that going to be part of I don't see Patrick. Where is he? I can't see him. Is that something you're going to talk about, Patrick? No, it wasn't.

Okay. All right. So if I'm when you had the list of there were the top five things that really couldn't be changed and then the other was the streets. Um so is that part of of some and maybe I'm getting ahead of some other uh item down the road but uh street width in terms of cost for the specifically the new development is that is that going to be a part of some discussion at some point Austin? Um there's there's maybe a

yes we we will be looking at those costs because what we see is obviously the upfront cost to the developer but all the taxpayers have an ongoing maintenance cost of that uh and so what is if we narrow our streets in this case by 4 feet are there some projected savings over time because we have narrower streets so I think we can look into that for sure but yes we we will be looking at that and we'll have some some data on that.

Thank you. Thank you for doing that. My one of my concerns is as as council member is the unintended consequences of doing something today, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road because all councils have to sometimes bear the brunt of not necessarily poor decisions, but something that wasn't thought through well. So, I hope that if you're going to address that, then I'll I'll save save mine.

Yeah, we will be addressing that. And and just to give some also some insight that uh Austin and and the whole committee looked at was parking. Our local streets are used as parking because we're in West Texas. We have big vehicles. We just do. Uh and so they don't always fit in the normal driveways or we have three or four vehicles. And so when you start parking on both sides of the street, yeah, it's nice to have narrower streets maybe to slow the the speed down and to reduce cost, but you're not going to be able to get a a u emergency services through there, right? And so that that's also been a consideration from that team. And so I think they worked really hard at doing that uh and trying to come up with a solution that at least gives us some savings uh from the upfront as well as the ongoing long-term. Well, and to to your point about the just the maintenance of the street itself, um, long term, I would assume Patrick would be concerned about that. I hope.

Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, okay. I I'll I'll save my comments and questions for when that appropriate time is. a little more but and they're very correct and I don't want to sound like I I hope I didn't sound condescending on what you're you're but that was the difficult thing on planning is that the developers don't want to put in a wide road it costs more money it's also more money but it has to be safe not only for our emergency vehicles but because we typically park on but thank you sorry with that Austin thank you very much for your first maiden voyage here

thank you all very Bring up somebody else to wear the bullseye. All right. For this for this next item or this next part of the LDSO, I kind of want to preface it. When when we first started talking internally about um this next item, it was long before the affordable housing conversation ever started. Um, we actually started this conversation back when John James first started with the city. Um, it was determined at that time that the signs and the traffic control devices for developments needed to be brought forth with an LDSO. Unfortunately, this is the first opportunity for that. So, we wanted to go ahead and bring this forward even though it doesn't necessarily meet our affordable housing agenda that we've been talking about um recently. But nonetheless, um, today whenever a developer constructs a new subdivision, the city, it bears the full cost of all the signs and the striping and etc. that goes into that subdivision. So all the stop signs, all the stop bars, everything that goes into there, the developer puts in the subdivision and the city comes back and bears the cost of all the signage and everything that goes along with that development. We as staff for years have been saying, well, the development is the catalyst for this expense. So why doesn't the development bear the burden of that cost as well? Just like any other infrastructure, whether it's a sewer or water or a street or a sidewalk, etc. Why are signs excluded from that obligation? So wanted to go ahead and have that conversation with you all today. Throw a proposal out here for y'all you all to consider. Um, basically what we're talking about today is taking that burden and shifting it from the city and the general fund over to the developer and the development c the cost

of that development. What we're talking about is about an $8,000 a year um burden on the general fund. So, we're not talking about a whole lot of money, but it is money that would be shifting over contrary to the affordable housing discussion that we've been having. So, the purpose real quick, I'm I'm not going to read these to you. These are just kind of those standard languages in the ordinance. Um, yall are well aware of why we do things. Promote health, promote safety, pro promote our vision and our strategies that council's laid out for us. What What will these do? Basically, it's going to standardize this thing for us. It's going to improve the safety of drivers and pedestrians. It's going to improve the public welfare by providing a clear and consistent means of communications as they're drive driving and walking around in these areas. and it's going to establish a minimum criteria for the development in that in that traffic control infrastructure. So what's going to apply to this when we say a traffic control device? So we're talking about signs, for example, stop signs, yield signs, street names, anything that is a sign that directs traffic or pedestrians, pavement markings, your stop bars, your lines in the middle of the roadway, any crosswalks or symbols like bike symbols or pedestrian symbols, anything like that. and then all the way up to signalized intersections. So, a full-blown signalized intersection or we can even be talking about pedestrian signals like your rapid flashing be beacons, your your yellow lights and and whatnot. All of that. Again, remember when we talk about development, we typically hone in directly onto residential, but this is residential and non-residential. So, this is commercial stuff as well, big box stores, so on so forth. Where will this actually apply? um according with our LDSO or in accordance with our LDSO as it stands today, it's going to be in the city limits and in the ETJ where we have jurisdiction as a contract with the county in order to review those subdivision uh subdivisions

in the county outside of our city limits. So, let's talk about what this process looks like if you were a developer and you want to and and you want to do a development. So the developer is going to want to construct a new development, whatever it's commercial or non or residential. Developer's engineer. He's going to hire an engineer and that engineer is going to put together a site plan for him. That's standard practice today. The only difference in this proposal is in that site plan, we're going to have the engineer go through and set our signs, our pavement markings, any of our signals that's going to be needed. any of those kind of traffic control devices is now going to be a part of that site plan. Those don't exist in the site plan today. KOSA will review it. Our city engineer will do it, review it, planning staff will review it. We'll go back and forth with that engineer until we come up with an approved and an agreeable um location and and type of signs and and where everything's located. Once that's approved, then we'll estimate the cost. So, what we're saying is we have a cost that we know costs us to do signs and pavement markings and everything for the city. We want to publish those rates so that the development community knows exactly how much is a sign going to cost me, how much is that installation going to cost me when it comes into when they when they're planning out their development and what that total cost is going to be. Um, so we'll we'll provide an estimate to them based on that site plan, based on the quantities of the site plan. the developer will pay for those traffic control devices. The logistics of when and how those still need to be figured out whether it's during the permitting and the plat and the the platting process or whether it's through a developer agreement later on. We can need to work through those details, but that's that's pretty easy semantics to work through. So once a once a developer pays for it, KOSA will actually we will actually

install the signs in the striping just as we do today. We're going to do that. What that does is it allows us to establish a consistent material, a consistent installation, a consistent type, right? There's there's various ways to meet breakaway standards and everything, but with us doing the work and providing all those materials now, we have a standard across the city. And since we're maintaining that infrastructure in perpetuity, we want that consistency, right? So we're not having to stock a myriad of number of of different materials and supplies when we have to go repair that infrastructure. And then just like normal, KOSA will take ownership and responsibility of that moving forward. So again, kind of talking about some of the details of what this LDSO proposal would would do. Um, for all the signs and the striping, we would provide those costs annually or by annually. So you would know what the cost of the signs were. You would know what the cost of the stripings were. Um, and then so for the signs, the way we do it today is we have a it's a per square foot size of the sign. Cost per square foot about $13, $15 a square foot. And then linear foot linear feet of striping. It's what we had proposed for signalized intersections. Those are bigger, right? Those are a much bigger deal. Those we're going to have to have a little more flexibility on. Say a Walmart's coming into town. Does Walmart want to put in that signalized intersection or do they want us to do it? Nonetheless, the traffic engineer is still putting together that that plan set that that design for that traffic signal. It's who's going to do it though. Is it KOSA or is it the the developer? Typically, the developer is going to get a cheaper price for that. So, they're probably going to opt into that, but this gives us KOSA the ability to do it as well if if we need to. some of those costs that we that we include in our signs and striping. Uh we include our material, our labor, our equipment, and then just a small administrative fee on top of that. So,

to give you a little bit of perspective when we're talking about the cost, if you were at an intersection, you did the biggest stop sign you could do with two street name signs fully installed, you're talking less than $300 a location. I think we had a testimony a few meetings several meetings ago that to put in five signs is going to be around $5,000 for that developer. So just to kind of put that into perspective on what the KOSA cost versus the developer cost would be if we if KOSA wasn't doing that installation. So I think these prices are absolutely fair. It's what it's costing us today to do this work. So um we're not necessarily profiting off of it. We're just transferring that expense or proposing to transfer that expense. Uh some of the deviations obviously there's going to be we need to have a little bit of flexibility in this. Um the developer can absolutely take it and if the he doesn't agree with the city engineer or the the planning director, he can request that in writing. Must have justification. This is a safety component, right? This is a traffic control device. So, we need that justification. Just because I don't want to put in a bunch of signs isn't justification for not installing that safety component for our travelers. And it must be approved by the city engineer and the planning director. Planning commission can wave uh can approve a waiver of deni or a denial of approve a waiver of a denied deviation request. That's going to be very limited. Again, right, we're talking about traffic control devices. We're talking about an engineered set that has their stamp and their responsibility on that plan set. So there's some things that aren't going to be able to be waved, but there's other things that can be like specific locations of things and so on so forth some of those. So there's a little bit of flexibility there, but

obviously city council would be subject to approval of that of that request. One of the one of the other features or items that we've struggled with in the past is we have no mechanism to ask a developer that's coming in, what is this going to do to our existing infrastructure? How is your development going to impact traffic today in our streets today? That analysis is called is called a traffic impact analysis. Basically what they do is they look at the type of subdiv or type of development that's going in the number of vehicle number of homes number of vehicles number of patrons if it's a commercial development whatever it is and they say what is going to be the traffic load that this particular development is going to do and what do we need to do to the existing infrastructure or around it in order to in order to support that new development. We don't have a mechanism to ask for that today. text dot does, but for text dot to require it, that development has to be touching a text dot roadway. So, what we want to do is we simply want to work in take this opportunity to bring that opportunity for us um as as staff to look at a subdivision and say, we know this is going to have an impact on our the built infrastructure around here. Can we go ahead and take a little bit further analysis in this? Do a little bit more digging, get some information so that then we can make an educated decision on whether we need another traffic signal here or if we need an auxiliary road or if we need to widen the road from a two-lane to a four lane. What is it going to do? And that is going to be up completely up to the discretion of the city engineer um as we're looking at these subdivisions. It may not have it. It all depends on the built environment around it. Where is it going in? you know, it there's various factors that come into play there. So, it really needs to be discretionary instead of just having trigger points, right, for this TIA, but

I wanted the opportunity to work it in there so that we can go back and ask a developer in order to do that as staff so that we can have the information to make an educated decision on our infrastructure that has a long-term impact and a safety impact on everybody around. So for discussion and direction today from you all, it's really two choices that we're asking for. Do you want to continue the existing practice of the general fund bearing the cost of the traffic control infrastructure for new developments or would you like to assign that traffic control cost to the developers whose development is the catalyst of the expense? That's the question that's posed to you all for this particular topic today. and I'm happy happy to answer any questions.

So, I'll start with this, Patrick. I get what we're trying to do and we're trying to make these things um more manageable and predictable for the future. I I think we've got some punch items here, but if you look at this topic in a broader picture, we're leaving some I mean, we've still got, you know, if we talk about the future ownership of items. I know me and Shane talked about the um barrier signs and some of those as development goes forth you you incur that cost per house not you know and sometimes if you put some of these things in they're mobile they have to move on another thing I think we've left off here is you know retention and and detention ponds certainly fit in this category and we've never solved that issue in seven eight years so I think if we're going to bring that up there's some abilities to go through a trade area and say look those over time need to fall back into the city. Is there a way to work that into this mix? I don't think this is a a pull the trigger on it today to be able to say is that going to go all the way. We'll let council make that decision. But I do think there's a broader picture here of some items that go down this whole path that probably need to be included in what we're going to discuss. I don't think it's fair just to pick out a couple items because they're quick and tangible. I think we go for a big solve at the whole time. With that, I'll open it up to council for questions. Mary, start on your side.

Um, at at the beginning you said it was about $8,000 uh is our cost. That is is how is that broken down? That's an annual cost for us. So, we're putting in signs, you know, three or four subdivisions going in every year. Once the subdivision goes in, we come in and we drop in the signs after that. That's just done at at our regard, right? And so, um, once the subdivision's built out and we kind of get some construction rolling, we typically try to stay, we typically try not to put in the signs until after like that corner lot is built because inevitably they get run over 15 times if we go and put them in right away. It's just the nature of construction. But,

we do need to get those those in there because we start having deliveries to homes and stuff like that. So, we need to get them in there. But it's um I kind of rambled there on your question. I don't know if I even answered it.

Um my deal is I'm reluctant to pass on any further expense to the developers. I mean we sometimes I say we not just the city everything tend to start nickel and dimming a lot of the you know here's 200 there you know add another $100 to a permit or something like that. Uh, I would like to see and like what Tom said, this is a can be a broad topic or it can get as detailed as it's unimaginable how detailed it could get. Pardon me. I would just I would like to hear what planning or what some of these other developers if there's a a tradeoff maybe they don't have to um you know expend certain have any other greater expenses uh in order to absorb that but I I really don't want to start that's what our tax dollars are for and I would before we just kick the can down to the developers I'd like to see uh at least a compromise or some input from them, you know, but uh no, I I like what you're doing and I appreciate it. I just

and we we did pitch this in the in the committee. They haven't seen these details yet just because we hadn't had them worked through, but we pitched the concept to them and I don't want to speak for them, but I didn't receive any negative feedback from them on that. There may be some difference of opinion later on if Rocky has wants to come up or any of the other members want to come up, but we can absolutely bring forth those thumbs up, thumbs down from them. Sure. Sure. I just u want to kind of be a watchdog on that. But thank you, Patrick. Yes, ma'am. fair.

U I'll just say that I concur with the mayor that I think the conversation perhaps needs to be slightly broader and that uh that we should all here seated keep in mind our longgoing ongoing conversation about cost of services. Patrick, on the um on the developments, can we distinguish between commercial and residential like like you mentioned the Walmarts or whatever? I assume those traffic signals would be a lot more expensive to put in. Cost us a lot more money.

It really depends on the infrastructure that they're going in on. Um you know, a traffic signal is going to be the same for a 200 own development as it would be for Walmart if it's going on Bryant. So, um, you know, we had

and and again, that's kind of that we want that we need that liberty to define where that scope of that TIA would be. Um, if y'all remember the Cox Lane conversation in that development there, 250 homes, we know that's going to hit Cox Lane. We know that's going to hit Bryant and nobody's going to go to the signalized intersection at Ben Ficklin and Bryant. They're going to go to the left and they're going to go to that un uncontrolled intersection. That's already a dangerous intersection. So we would have proposed in that case that that TIA would extend to that you know to that limit to say what is going to be the impact on that that particular intersection right there. So that's the importance of having this TIA without that all of a sudden this this development starts impacting that and it's at 100% on the city to figure out if we want to do something with them. We all know how likely that all these signalized intersections that we want to put a signal in how likely those are to get funding. So, we just want to get that cost ahead of before somebody, you know, before there's a safety um a safety concern and as well put it on the on the catalyst for the need for that that particular device.

Um and then on you mentioned something earlier about u the signs or something that cost them so much and you thought the city could do it just that much cheaper. Is there anything that can be worked out with that where we are able to do some of that and they just reimburse us what we think our cost is and them not have to That's that's really all we're doing is we're reimbursing our cost for it.

And and again today we're we're doing it. We're just not getting reimbursed for that cost. So if we have to go put in a street a stop sign with a with a street name sign, it's our cost is $290. We're just asking the developer to pay that $290 back to the city is all that is all this would do. It was mentioned about the other signs. I don't know if it's the breakaway signs at the end of the streets or what it was talking you you mentioned that they said it cost them like 5,000 to put in.

That was the end of road markers. If you remember the end of road marker conversation, they had gotten a quote from a contractor for them to do those five end road markers and it was around that number. Um we obviously would be much cheaper than that. Um for that particular one, we would probably be around less than 200 assign. So, less than $1,000 for the entire all five of them.

I don't know if that's something and and I guess that's not every development, but I don't know if there's a trade-off there. If if they're saving the money on that end, then they can rec you know, we recoup our costs on the other end. Um I I think it's and like your point number two there is they're the catalyst for the expense, but they're also the catalyst for our general fund on on their development brings in our tax dollars and our growth, right? So, I think it's definitely a give and take and where can we be responsible? we make developers pay for for most of it as it is. Why not add this small expense to them, but on the other hand, it's also a very small expense

um for them to show them good faith that hey, we want developers here. We want you to keep building out so that our city keeps growing the right ways. Um, so I think there's a lot to unpack and discuss and I I hope that we just get with the developers and and try to come to symbiotic relationship, make sure that they understand where we're coming from and why we're doing it and and see how we can help them on the other end. Let me ask one quick question. I'll keep going down the bench. When we did Kent Quick on 33rd, who paid for the street light? Kenqu did. Kent Quick did that one, right? Yes, sir.

And they I mean, trust me, we put that there just for them. But again, that was because they abuted a text roadway. Text required it as an extension of 33rd across there. So getting back some what Patrick brought up that was a commercial one and that certainly needed to lay on Kentquick. The citizens of San Angelo did not need to pay for that one because they were the primary beneficiary of it. Now we get some future tax. But I think there's some gray area there. Um if we did move forward with this Patrick, I sometimes wonder if it has the potential to be abused as far as somebody comes through and update. Well, the cost assigns are this and sometimes you look for clarity and transparency on what these costs are. So, I I think those things we can fix as we move forward. Harry,

well, most of what I'd like to say is probably already been said, but one thing I want to talk about is, and Patrick kind of alluded to this a little bit, and that is where is the cost going to going to lie? Is it going to lie with the citizens that don't have anything to do with that particular neighborhood by impacting your sales tax dollars? I mean, your property tax dollars or is it going to lie with the people that are purchasing the homes? Now, we've struggled in the 10 years that I've been up here to talk about affordable housing, but I cannot see that when you're putting in a full neighborhood development that another four or $5,000 spread over 25 or 30 homes is going to impact somebody not buying a house. So from that perspective, the other thing Patrick, you said all the way back to when John James came here. So we're talking 10 years ago. So we've worked through this process to this point. We don't have to be fully finished with this in the next month or two. Let's get it right first time. So if it takes another three or four months, I'm I'm comfortable with that. I'm That's it. Joe,

I'll ramble a little bit more. Uh, it's the cost of doing business one way or the other, whether it goes to the majority of the citizens or the developer. Uh, I I agree with affordable housing. U, I I I don't know which side which direction I honestly want to go right now because I I think there are some gray areas in my opinion or or maybe things left out that could pop up as an issue later. Um, I know the end of a street, the barricades was a big issue, especially when certain developers know within a year or two they're going to push that on. Why put in something that costs a lot of money? I understand that they can put a temporary deal when they're going to push it through. Also, if it sits there for 10 years and doesn't get pushed through, then we have an issue. So, there's a big big gray area, big give and take. And so I I I guess I hate to reiterate. Let's look at it a little bit more and keep working on it. But uh I I didn't give a whole lot of direction. I just rambled. Sorry. Uh

join the club. Yeah, it just there's a whole lot out there. But

I want to clarify something for my slow mind. When a when a developer puts in, we're talking brand new development here. That's what you're talking about, right? Okay. I want to clarify that. So, a brand new development, they're going to take into account their land cost, the cost that they have to put up to put in uh their portion of water and sewer lines, um the street, um they're going to figure that cost into the price that they sell the lot for and or then if they're going to build on that lot into the price of the house. So then they're going to be able to over time, if not more quickly, recoup their cost. I think that's the theory. Correct.

That is.

And so then that ultimately is going to control the what the uh appraisal district is going to approve that improvement, that house on or that commercial building on. uh that would then be remitted uh to the appraisal district in in the way of their advalor property tax. Correct. It seems to me that this the the option number two, every time that property is sold, somebody is then paying for and I'm going to say their portion and it's not a portion, but they're having that traffic control device there. they're going to be paying for that every time that property turns over. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that option two is by far the best option because it's paid for every time that property turns over uh through the property tax on that property from now on. And yet the city has been up to this point footing that bill and that has been going to every single citizen across the city. Again, my I'm I'm I'm my thinking may be totally confused and convoluted and clouded, but it seems to me that option two is by far the best option. That's just my thought. No, Patrick, I think you've certainly got so this is not a vote item thing today. This is just a discussion. You've certainly got some action items here to hit. Um, as we move forward, can we go ahead and bring public comment up on this? Rocky Templan,

Rocky Templan, single member, District 6. Uh, at one of the meetings, Patrick did briefly bring this up and we were all against it. Um, it's basically, uh, it's government control. It's more red tape. Um, it's more the individual homeowners paying more tax dollars on a street sign. And we already put in I'm putting in one street in one alley right now. Sewer and water about $900,000. And so if I could just pay for the sign, it would be different. I think the delineator deal we decided. We figured that out real quick. So that deal's done and gone, over with. It worked out great. And as far as Ray and Austin on the LDSO part, I think they did great. But for this part for Patrick, this kind of gonna really wouldn't gone over because now I'm going to have to pay an engineer to engineer every one of those signs and stop signs. And then I'm going to have to do a traffic study to figure out what my 20 lots are going to do to the traffic. So I would not even know what that would cost. Those two items right there, we could be looking at 20 grand. whether you did 20 lots or 200 lots, that's going to be a minimum base fee that the engineer and somebody's going to charge for a traffic study where if if Packard could give us the 8,000 per year, if he could break down the residential part of that and the commercial part of that, well, it may be that the residential part only cost $1,200 for a year. Well, that wouldn't be much at all. And so as far as um my the 20 years that I've been putting in development, the city has never striped or painted the stop end of a street on any street I've ever put in. So we're going to see more government now and they're going to say, "Oh, well now you need to start striping those streets that we have never striped or we need to paint paint ends on where the

yield and the stop signs are that they have never painted." And so I promise you, you can drive through Prestonwood that's been there for 20 years and there's not anything painted on the streets and never has been. And then plus when they do the recoting, which has really been great. I think it's a HA5 or something. That stuff has been really good. I mean, I'm all for that because here I'm putting in 1.2 to4 million for those streets. I'm really glad that the city's taking care of those. But when it when it comes to the paved alleys, the city has never maintained an alley over there in 20 years. 20 years. I've never touched an alley. And so I would like this item be talked about a lot more before it's even mixed in with the LDSO if possible. And I still have a few questions on that, but I think I can get with Ray and Austin get those questions answered. Cool.

Thank you. Thank you, Rocky. Okay, with that summary, I think we've got you some input there, right? You know, from all of us. Uh we just want to do it right the first time. We want to be what's fair and it's not fair for the the entire citizens of St. Angelo to take the burden of, you know, something that's just going to a specific area, but then again, it's a two-way street. We don't want to anything above its natural cost is a tax. And we're not here to tax anybody either um in the development process. So with that, you know, I think you've got plenty of direction from and consensus from the crowd. Do you think so, Patrick, on what to go back and work on and what to move with? Yes, sir. We'll work on uh number 1.62

moving forward. And we tie there's not any further questions for Patrick, we'll move to the next item. Yeah. And to be fair to Rocky, he is right. We and like I said, we did not discuss the details of this. We only had the one opportunity to to bring it up. Um, but we can absolutely go back and work with them. I think we have a great This LDSO group has been great to work with. So, I absolutely think we can come up with a decision. All right, Patrick. Real quick on that, Patrick. Patrick. Patrick. Patrick. Yeah, Patrick. Patrick. I'm Patrick.

Uh, something Rocky brought up was about the engineering studies and things like that. And I don't know where we can um come to a good spot on that where our engineer, the city can handle some of that and save a lot of the cost whether they recoup it or not. But there's some things we can do a lot cheaper than you can go out in the public and have to go hire an engineer to do things like that. So, I think that's something else to look at on there is what can we do at our cost and even if it is passed to them, but try to be able to save that from them having to go out and hire a a civil engineer from a different firm that's going to just have a lot higher cost on them. Definitely an option we'll put on the table in that discussion. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Patrick Frederick.

All right. Number two is street lighting. Um, today when a subdivision goes in, they uh it's really up to the developer whether there is street lights put in with that development or there are not street lights put in with that development. I don't know the exact numbers, but I know that several of the subdivisions actually do put in street lights. That's a that is a cost that's borne by the developer. It's worked through the franchise utility. The only the only responsibility that the city has in that is part of the review process. And then afterwards we take over the ownership of those lights or not necessarily the ownership but the payment for the recurring use of the electricity of burning those lights every every evening. So um again go through the whole purpose and the standards and why we need them. Um so in this LDS LDSO one of the one of the pieces of feedback we often get is I want a street light on my street. We don't necessarily have a funding mechanism to go install new street lights on roadways. So oftentimes the answer is is no. There's some variance in that. If we if we come up with a safety concern for that, if if it's in in the middle of a curve or something like that and it needs the vehicular traffic needs needs that um that particular safety hazard to be highlighted, then we can see if we have the budget to install that or if it's off of an existing pole and it's not going to cost us anything, then we can do it there. There is a little flexibility in that, but for the most part, we're talking about new subdivision going in with new street lights. Um, so this proposal would say that street lights are a requirement for new subdivisions to be put in on on every roadway, whether that's a private road or a public roadway. simply so that 10 years down the road when houses sell and development and and everything happens now we're not coming back with the ask from the residents of that community asking the city to bear the

burden of putting in that that street lighting infrastructure. Um again must comply. Y'all can read through all of those and we'll kind of go through the the process of street lighting. This is the exact process that happens today. There's nothing different here. developer wants to construct. The engineer designs a site plan. They actually put the street light um locations on that site plan. The city reviews that says, "Nah, let's put a street light here. We want to highlight this alley since it's a rear entry type of thing." Um we do have a council adopted street light policy that dictates distances and types of materials and stuff like that. So, we abide by that policy as we're required to, but we approve the location of those street lights on the site plan. The developer then takes that site plan, goes to the respective franchise utility, whether it's in a's area or whether it's in Concho Valley Electric's area, gets an estimate from them to do the installation. Once they agree on the installation, a or Koncho Valley actually comes in, does that installation, developer pays for that for that directly to the franchise utility, and then the city takes over again that monthly cost of of whatever it takes for the electricity or that for that particular street light. Kind of just went through all of these cost installation. It's it's between the developer and the franchise utility. We only review and approve locations of street lighting. Deviations are the same as before. They can request must be justified. Planning commission can approve a waiver of a denial and then council ultimately has approval. That was very quick but up for discussion. Make it a requirement or leave it as a discretion discretionary action to the developer. That's really the two the two ask and the direction that that we're looking for council today as we look at this LDSL rewrite.

Patrick, did you say that currently now there's not a stipulation on it and they're actually doing it voluntarily? They're doing it voluntarily. It's it's up to them. Uh you know I again I'm not going to speak for them, but I feel I think it's you know how do you how do I promote the sale of my subdivision? Is it safe? Is it you know it's a it's a marketing tool for them. That one's so deep into the public safety and and what needs are required that my personal opinion we leave that one alone and let that go with with number two there. It looks like it hasn't had that many objections. Excuse me. Number one, because that's what they've been doing voluntarily is number one, right? Number one. Well, number they've been putting them in, but it hadn't been a requirement by the city to do it. They've been doing it voluntarily.

But that's basically what we what we want in public safety. I mean, we don't want an unlighted street. We get that. Anyway, we'll open it up to the dice. Patrick, do we know roughly what it costs to put in a street light? It's been a m It's been a minute since I've had to cost one out. Um, again, that's between the developer and the franchise utility. So, probably around, if I'm going to throw a number out there, I'm going to be lying to you, Patrick. 12 to 15. That's what I was going to say. Right around two grand is where I was estimating. I bet they'd put signs in if if we didn't make the street lights require getting into that trade

on Yeah. on those street lights. Um am I crazy to wonder if um sensor lighting would be beneficial to save money because do we take over the cost of the electricity going forward? It's not it's not a unit cost of the electricity. It's a cost per pole. Okay. And so we pay a unit cost per the pole that and what that does is a orcha valley is actually respon owns the pole and responsible for repair of anything. So if a street light burns out we call them they bear that full cost of of repair but we pay that monthly utility bill for them to light it every night. So it probably wouldn't save us any money in the long run if if that was a sensor lighting was a thing.

No, I mean it again it you you get on to um what's the word I'm looking for? uh light trespass. So when we flipped over to the LEDs, we had to make a very conscious effort into which LEDs we put where, how we shield them because we have we had more light trespass than we did with the old H hallogen style bulbs. Um so if you did area lighting, you're going to get a lot more light trespass on the private properties that may not be conducive to someone trying to sleep or, you know, have a little privacy in their home. So I would shy away from from area lighting and stick with our traditional street lighting. But yeah, thank

uh I would think that this conversation should be driven by crime and safety data with and without street lights and that we can't have this conversation a complete conversation without that. Mr. Mary, I'm good. Tommy, I think I like number one. Um, since they're doing it voluntarily anyway. Um, so I I think I like number one. We don't have street lights in our neighborhood. Somebody's talking about light pollution or what whatever the term you just use. I think pollution is the right word. I use trespass, but pollution is right. Uh we had a huge issue with light trespass at

Yeah. fifth level or whatever it was. Yeah. Yeah, we did. Um but we don't have street lights in our neighborhood. Now what has started happening the neighbors have start putting up all the lights around their house and you have light trespass from the neighbors lights. So I like I like the street lights personally. Uh ours are at the end of the block on the alley. So I like number one. S

I'm kind of gonna ramble again, but it's kind of like sidewalks. They're good. They're safe. At the same time, too, you get a lot of push back because it's an added cost. I'm not sure this is an added cost like sidewalks because I've been down that rabbit hole on planning as well. Uh but I just also it I'm I have reservation requiring something. Um, if it's needed, they'll put it in, but I mean, same way with sidewalks. If they think it's needed, they will put them in somewhat, but I also understand that it would be good. So, I I don't know. 67.

Yeah. 67. What is it, Harry?

You say that. My granddaughters were in the car the other day and somebody said 67 on the radio and they both went, "Oh, I'm I think I agree with Joe. I don't think I want to make it a requirement right now. In order to sell a house or a neighborhood, these developers are putting these in on their own. They're paying for them, doing whatever they need to do. The city's just saying we think it may be better in this particular area than over here. So I I don't I don't want to make it a requirement right now. I don't want to make any more put this cost where they're already already footing the cost. So number two to me is better. Anyway,

once again, Patrick, we've got a lot of different questions up here. I will say I've had two calls of people wanting to add and I actually called you on one of them. People because of the lack of a street light, public safety, students crossing the road, their kids going to school or somewhere has actually called requesting us, you know, put in a street light. I get it. Um I know we're not going to pull the trigger and make this final today, but you've got some research to do and go out there and talk with some developers and see how it is. I like the fact that they're doing that voluntarily. That's so much better. But sometimes we find people stray from that and if you don't make it a rule sometimes it might disappear where we need it and eventually all the citizens of St. Angela would have to carry that burden. Very good. Cool Patrick. Thank you sir. All right. Appreciate y'all.

We have

one public comment coming up. Ry Templan single member district 6. I didn't even know this was on the agenda, but I put it's on H. Yeah, it's continuation of H. And so, yes, as as a developer, I already thought there was a code. I would not build a subdivision without street lights. I hate driving them at night in the winter. And so, we actually put one on every corner. It's on our plans. the city approves them because we go ahead and have to put perpetual easements designated people's property lines before we ever start. And then we try to put one I think roughly every 750 ft on a street depending on how long the street is. We break it up. So I'm all for it unless the city says, "Well, no, now we want one every 100 feet." Then I'm going to be against it.

Amen. Thank you, Rocky. That's a non-action item. Correct. Correct. We're complete, Patrick. Thank you for your presentation. I'm going to call an audible right here. Ray, I'm going to give you a fivem minute warning. Starting about Ryan, we're going to go and take a quick break for five minutes and then we'll reconvene here. I don't even have time at 11:25. Sorry, I interrupt. All right. Discussion direction for modifications to the zoning ordinance allowing for additional residential zoning districts impacting affordable housing. Presentation made by lead planner Ray Linberry. Ray, you're on.

All right, it's still morning, right? Good morning, Ray Linberry, lead planner. Um, so I'm closing the show today. So, I'm going to try to be brief, but yet I would like some dis feedback from you guys. Um, so the purpose of this was to help with affordable housing. um builders came to us and said that some of our requirements meant that they were going to build houses in um a certain price point. So, we kind of hit the table and was like, "Okay, what can we do to help?" So, most of what I'm going to be talking about is this chart and the next chart. So, I'm going to kind of go back and forth and try to give you explanations on some of these changes. The very first quick ones is these three right here. Not much has changed with them. So, we didn't touch them at all. It this way. How do I make those? There we go. Okay. So, those last three didn't really change. Um, the biggest change that you're seeing a lot of the red on is the fact that we took out the structure types and included them back in this chart instead. So, that's what a lot of the red lines are. Um, is we took out the the structure type and we kind of just made it all right there. I'm going to take all that off now. um in one line. So that is what a lot of the red line is at the moment. Um as far as structure types, we did want to add I'm going to go back to that one. So we did add industrialized housing and then

triplex and quadruplex. Otherwise, the structure types are staying the same. Oh, I'm not There we go. Okay. Um, the other thing that we're doing is the RM1 zoning, which is this one right here. Um, it allows for a lot of structure types. It's kind of a catch-all zoning. Um, builders tend to zone their subdivisions that so that way they have options. We kind of took that away from them. Um, we want to know what you're going to build. Uh, there was some issues with zero lot lines. next to single family homes and causing issues. So again, we took that away. Um we created RM1L for legacy. You cannot reszone to that. Um it is for currently RM1zoned properties. We kept everything the same under it because they have a right to um what they are currently zoned. Um but then we do have a new RM1 zoning that is just multifamily. Um and pretty much otherwise we kept it the same as just is just multif family. Can't do single family home under it, duplexes, um that type of thing. Okay. Um and then we added three new zones. So um RS5. So all of these are going to be available um for you to zone into. We are not going to zone anybody's property, any of these new ones. You have to come to us and request to be reszoned. Um, so that also gives planning commission and council the opportunity to see the areas that these zonings are going into and kind of give you a little bit of leeway on um, not

really permission, but kind of kind of get an idea of where it's going. Um, but RS5 is only going to be available Oops. um for infill properties. And so any place any of those neighborhoods that we have designated as infill um you are able to reszone to this zoning RS5. So we have found that a lot of those lots are already um they're already created. They can't really take from neighborhood neighbors property to meet our 50 by 100 lot size. So, this zoning allows them to be smaller. They can fit um in between houses. This will allow some of the bigger lots to break it up and have more housing um on some blocks. The the the other thing, well, this kind of affects all of them, but the the other thing is a 35 foot width of a lot. Um I have a picture of that that I'm gonna jump to real quick. So, if you notice the this property right here is our normal 50-ft width. And then both of these are 35 foot. So, developers are saying that to build a street and everything, it'll help cut down cost on the size of the lot on the width. Um, so one of the infill one of the properties of the infill zoning is that the 35 foot width will also help fit in between houses. Um, that you can point on that. That is really cool. Um, so RS4 is kind of a same as RS1. It's just allowing the smaller lot. Um, when we went to the committee and said we wanted

to do an RS5 for just infill lot, they were kind of, well, we want smaller lots, too. Um, so RS4 is allowing them to go smaller, not quite as small as infill. Um, if you notice, it has 3,000 square feet instead of the 25 thou 2500 square f feet. Um, we did put a max on the RS4 because of RS1. Why wouldn't we just all zone to RS4? Why even use RS1? Um because these are minimums. The 35 square the 35 foot width is a minimum. Um you can always go larger. Um and we did get rid of the depth in all of the zonings. Um because once you have a minimum and a square footage, that kind of gives you a minimum depth already. Um, for instance, the 5,000 square foot on RS1, if you have to have a minimum of 50 foot width and you have to meet that square footage, it's going to be a 100 foot depth at minimum. So, we kind of got rid of all the depths. That's what all these right here are um taking taking away of taking removing. Um, so RS4 is just like RS1, just smaller lots. RS5 is infill. RS6, so with adding a triplex and a quadruplex, we really try to figure out where to put that. Um, in planning's mind, that is multif family. Um, in sometimes in the building code, it can be residential, it could be commercial. So, we kind of went back and forth and finally we decided um we're just going to create a zoning that is just triplex

and quadruplex. So, RS6 is going to be just quadruplex and um triplexes. Um so, we we got the minimum lot area uh and I did Yeah. So, the minimum lot area of a triplex will be 5,000 square feet with a front ojo of 35 feet. And we have a minimum parking spot. So all of this affects parking which is why we are requesting to change section 511 which affects parking. And then the quadriplex is the 7 I didn't even touch the screen that time. Um the minimum lot size is 7,000 square foot with a lot furnage of 50 50 feet and eight parking spaces. Um so we looked at again lot dimensions, lot area. We also did front yard and sideyard. Um so we are changing we are keeping R& um that is ranch and estate but we did change RS1 and RS2 from 25 to 20 square feet or not square I'm sorry um setback a 20 foot setback instead of 25. I'm going to go back to my picture here. So currently like I said RS1 had a 25 foot setback. the house has to be 25 ft back from their property line, not the curb, the property line. Um, so we are changing that to 20 ft instead. We did hear a lot of builders um help with affordability is to come a little bit closer. So we did change that to 20. Uh we did

Okay. So, um let's see. So, we did make a little note here for RS3 and RS4. You see a number two. Um that would be we are saying it's going to be a required 18 ft front yard because a normal parking spot is 9 by8. So, you have to have the 18 foot to have a driveway and have your parking all off the street. Um, unless you're going to have a rear entry, then you can have it be a 15t front yard on RS3 and four. Okay. Um, RS5 and RS6, we are saying a 15t front yard. Um, again, that does the parking requirements. We would have to work on that. Um again, if there's rear entry, front yard entry, uh that that is something that we are looking at, but um maybe we can do a front yard parking kind of off to the side. Anyway, so that is what the builders decided on the smaller lots infill 15t front yard setback. And then the only other one we changed is RM2. We did change the instead of 25 to have a 20. Um mostly to be the same across the board. Um have the 20 foot set back. So sideyard they're pretty much all the same. Um we kept them at 5t on either side. It's a um we did up the RM2 that is a huge multifamily development. Um we did increase their their sideyard set back to 20 feet instead of 10. Um, it was suggested by the builders to kind of give us a little bit more space

between huge buildings. We don't have very many of these at all. Um, and then rear yard. We didn't really change any of the rear yards. Again, this 10-ft rear yard in RS4 and RS3 will change if they decide to put their parking in the rear. It would be a um rear of 15t instead of 10. Um and then RS6 would have 15 and everything else stayed the same on the rear yard. So, this is where I'm going to jump. too far. So, it is suggested that we completely get rid of floor area ratio. Um, to better explain what that is, that is a planning term that we allow for a lot to be covered by a certain percentage of structures. Um it is to help with green space and um trees just an overall not have everything be structures. Um so doing some research looking at Armarilla LC Abolene um they all either do not use FAR anymore or they use it with lot coverage percentage and we have we would really like to get rid of FAR. We don't use it as well as it should be used. um lot coverage percentage would be a lot easier. Um also with the setbacks that we have and um the the lot width and depth, we kind of

already have some green space. You can't build 20 ft from your property line. If we have the setback of 20 feet, that's 20 feet of green space. Same with the rear. Um so we do have some green space. uh staff and the committee all were unanimous on getting rid of FAR. Um I did have an example of this. This picture um has a 15t front yard setback. That's how close the houses possibly could be. And just because this is the minimum, it doesn't mean that they have to follow it. It can be further back. Um, this is an 18 square foot 18,800 foot home and the lot width is 40 foot instead of the 35. Um, and the lot depth is 100. And if you look at the overhead picture, I mean, it it makes for a longer house, but this is more affordable. um they could make the house a little bit smaller, have more of a yard, but it's giving the developers options and possibly make affordable homes. So, the other item that I wanted to bring up that is very dis very much discussed on the committee is this industrialized housing. So, section E of the ordinance specifies industrialized housing, also known as modular homes. Um, it separates them out and they're only allowed in RS1 and that's only if these people follow these, you know, everybody follows these rules. So doing a lot of research, every single city that I researched considers industrial and/or modular homes the

exact same as single family homes. They they do have a separate in their I'm going to go back to this chart. In their structure type, they do have it listed out, but it's allowed in every single um zoning residentially zoned district. So I wanted to at least give you the differences. Industrialized modular homes are built not at the site. They are built in a factory. However, they have to follow state and city codes. So it is very similar to a a stickuilt house. A manufactured house is a national HUD codes, not the city or state codes. Um the industrial and mo and modular houses are traditionally appraised as traditional stickuilt homes. Um manufactured houses have specialized forms. They have to have a physical inspe inspection to see the condition. So industrial andor modular housing is different than a manufactured home. Um so it has been up for discussion of completely getting rid of section E or um staff would also um keep um I think this section number five to um allow it to be a comparable price with the homes appraised at a comparable price at the homes around it. Um, and I think that was it. Boundaries. Yeah. So, it's it's making sure the value stays the same. I hit on all the big points of the changes. This is a lot to go through. And again,

I wanted to I'm going to try to give you a clean version on the 21st so you can see what it looks like without all the red lines. um most of it we lowered a lot of the the stuff um the restrictions to try to help with affordability. So with that I would ask for any discussion or questions.

Ray, anytime you can bring something like that forward and take away the clutter, that's a win. Okay. So don't be frightening. But I mean you we have to be very predictable. You've got to have an SOP, the RS4 and the five. I see that. Um the I sometimes wonder if somebody wants to put in a man camp in the ETJ, where would that fall in? The ETJ we have no say on

Okay. So, it falls outside of these boundaries or limited. Those are some concerns I have now. Then, and it's obvious why they come forward. But with that, um if you want to drop far and everybody else would drop far, I don't know why we would fight that. And I do you have to have a approval from us to drop the FAR? It has to be taken out of the ordinance. So Okay. Yeah, that's right. Got to take it out. So the 20 the 21st you can

Well, we can go in and do that. What you've done should make a lot of people happy that are trying to take some unique footprints we have in our planning and zoning and make some houses fit there. And you know what a win is maybe sometimes putting five houses instead of four. And I think that helps our developers and builders quite a bit. With that, I'm going to open up to the DAS. I'll start down there with you, Mary, if you got any questions.

Yes, if you would uh email this to us. And also, do you I I haven't seen the full presentation. I don't know if you have a legend or any or anything or what. Like I didn't if you'll scroll down to the next page, please. Uh I didn't know what a is. It says approve. Yeah, stuff like that. So, if you could do that for me, that'll save me about an hour and a half of trying to Google each definition of that. But if you could email that to us, I'd greatly appreciate it. Yes, that's all. Thank you. But great job. That took a lot of time and a lot of work ahead of time. A is allowed. Yeah, I found that out now. Yeah, I'm I did not even think of that. Karen, I'm good. Thank you,

Patrick. On the legacy properties, do we and maybe this will be discussed more at the 21st meeting. Do we need to look into having a sunset on those so they're not zoned that for 20 years and not actually built on? I mean, if we if we don't think they're needed going forward, do we need to say you need to go ahead and build something on it or take that out? I don't know if that's going to be legal. That's probably a legal question. But

on those in the zoning code like the state statute, anything existing before we adopt a new ordinance, we have to allow or if we're going to take it away, um it's a regulatory taking. So we would have to actually figure out and there's a calculation in the code, you know, what that taking would cost and pay them for that. So I would say I mean if they come in voluntarily want to reszone it then that's a different story but otherwise I don't think we can say by a certain date you have to build or reszone. Okay. Um I think it it'll be perpetual. So

I'm good with that. I'm just curious. Um and then on you talked about the property line and not the curb. What is the difference in most of those feet wise? Um in most of them are about 10 feet. So is that is are you talking about the easement from the curb to their property line? Correct. That's the rightway easement. Okay. Um but they're still responsible for maintaining that 10 foot, aren't they? Correct. So I think that's something to look into. Um and then on FAR, you said there's a difference in FAR and lot area percentage, but to me that that was looking the same. So can you clarify that a little bit?

Yeah. Um so so with FAR we include the stories um you include um okay the the bottom floor the top floor attic space um any type of structure if a garage has a second story um anything like that that's that's far um lot coverage is just your first floor and any structures that are enclosed. So percentage kind of looking at it from bird's eye view the percentage square footage. Okay, perfect. Yeah, that makes sense to me of going to that um because like you talked about we already have the setbacks and stuff that'll fix any of those issues.

Um and then on on modular and manufactured industrial. So I just want to clarify modular and manufactured are two completely different correct types types of homes. And on modular do modular industrial they meet um do they not meet every building standard of a regular single family home? Correct. Okay. And yeah, I'm I'm I'm for those. I know that that's come up too with the um July 4th flood and people trying to go back with homes and what they can do and if they could save money doing that. So I'm I'm all for those. They already meet standards and you talked about that they're in other cities. So thank you, Harry.

There's a lot of work on in this and just like all these previous presentations, uh 21st of April is going to be a busy day. Uh I I think if you can uh take all the red lines out of that particular chart, it makes it a little easier on the on the eyes. And I'm pleased that we've put in the RS4 and five especially uh to help with some of the decision planning commission and city council has to make. So let's get it done. Jose,

very good. Uh, I I did a good job and I think it addresses a lot of the issues that came up in planning that we'd have to decipher through and decide whether we'd allow or not. So, this sets it out and it's a good good that it's out there and good good move. Thank you, Fever. If everybody says getting rid of FAR, then it's okay. It's okay with me getting rid of FAR. Um, so yeah, thanks for all the work, Ray. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, Ray, is there any questions we should have asked that we didn't? Um, nope. Do you guys Nope. Coming up behind me. So maybe I just have one thing to add. Um, did you sign up for public comment?

Yes, sir. Just one thing to add. So, there's been kind of a thought of why many why so many RS districts and not RM? Well, if you remember, this kind of goes back to that short-term rental discussion and sidewalk discussion. RS doesn't require sidewalks. You have to have the 500 foot separation for short-term rentals. RM that stuff is is kind of goes away. And so that's that separation that we Well, let's add the RS districts because that's what people are asking for. And they still have to do the 500 foot separation for short-term rentals as opposed to that catchall in RM1 that you can just do any kind of structure type. And as we saw a few council meetings ago, that was a an issue that popped up and we're like, let's see if we can resolve that in some way. So, I think they did a great job. I'm very pleased with the team.

You need to commend that group. They they put a lot of information forward together and there's a lot of input. We appreciate planning and developments quite a bit. Thank you'all for listening today. All right. Thank you, Aaron. Rocky public comment.

It is still morning. Rocky Templan, single member, District 6. Uh Aaron, Ray, and Reed, a lot of work. Thanks. They've worked over time. We've had many of meetings and it's really come a long way. So, uh I think they've done a great job. I have a couple questions for them and I'll get resolved before Monday before it goes to planning. And then uh the only question I had was uh somebody mentioned man camps and the RM1 which is allowed the STRs and they're selling those off individually and putting 8 10 12 on a piece of property and selling them off and they're renting them daily. So I would I like the idea of the RM1L which they're still going to be allowed to do that I assume. But my question is on the RM1, are STRs still allowed?

All right, with that we will go into close session. Executive session under the provision of government code title 5 open government ethics subtitle A open government chapter 551 open meetings sub chapter D exceptions to requirements that meetings be opened under the following sections. A section 551.072 072 deliberations about real property regarding the possible lease with St. Angelo data center campus LLC of approximately 347 acres of unimproved real property out of surveys 19 and 20 WC RI co company and survey 4- half-JW Johnson generally located to the east of North US Highway 67. With that, we'll move into close session. All right, we'll call it back to session at 12:21. on Tuesday, March the 17th, we'll go into number um coming out of close session section A. Then we'll go to eight. Follow up and administrative issues. Consider items discussed in executive executive session if needed. Authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute a lease agreement with St. Angelo Data Center Campus Power LLC for lease of approximately 347 acres of unimproved real property out of surveys 19 and 20 WC Riicho and survey 4 and a half W JW Johnson generally located to the east of North US Highway 67 for a 5-year term with the rent at $1 million per year to convince to commence on November 1st, 2026. That's the first motion. Can I get a second?

Second. Second by Karen. Oh, second by Mary. No, it's fine. First by Tom, second by Mary. We'll go into this. Can we get some comment on this legal?

Yeah. So, just to give some background on this item. This is the property that's currently under contract um with Skybox who their subsidiary this Angelo Data Center Campus Power. Um the reason we're being asked to do a lease is because of uh a new legislation, Senate Bill 6, which when a data center company tries to get an allocation of power from OOTT, uh Urkott is now requiring that they show they have an ownership interest in the property or a leaseold interest. Um previously they were allowing options like an option contract to purchase. They're not allowing that anymore. And so they've asked us to do a temporary lease and they proposed a 5-year term. Uh that term is still going to be subject to the terms of our purchase contract. Um so if that goes away, the lease will also go away. Um, if for whatever reason that contract is extended, uh, so we do get into that 5-year term that they're asking for, then the annual rent would be a million dollars a year and that rent would go towards the purchase price. Um, if it if the transaction closes, if it doesn't closes close, then that would just be rent just like any normal lease. Um, I think that's about it on it.

Is it paid monthly or annually? Rick, I I mean I I thought it was initially the first payment was upfront 1 million. Um, but then it may be we could do that. We could probably specify however you would like within that agreement. Well, it's but they can end it at any point. So, they wouldn't necessarily have to keep it for a whole year. So if they ended it before the year was over, we would have to rebate the difference. I don't want to be in a position where we have to give them back money after we acrewed it, especially even after an audit. I mean, sometimes it's how we book that. So I would suggest that go with the monthly, but it's basically pro prrated out to a million a year, which would be $83,33.33 a month. Not that we've discussed this.

Yeah. Awesome. Um, seen it before. Any other questions or comments? have a first and a second. Public comments done. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Nobody opposed. Item passes 70. U follow up and consideration items. Uh is anything for future agendas? Anybody got anything they want to bring up? Karen,

some of you may have noticed the reestablishment of an encampment southbound Bryant just below Wentland Manufacturing. Um, I am curious whether or not the council would consider taking up a discussion of the designation of a three to four person abatement team to report to operations because they have the equipment to make that possible. I realize that uh getting too far ahead of myself is inappropriate, so I'll just leave that right there. But I think I think that based on the comments the sort of uptick in comments lately on the impact of the unhoused on our business community and our community in general that it's maybe warranted that we look at some solutions.

We'll get that taken care of uh on our end. Shane and I will talk about it here in a little bit. We'll take care of Will the resoning we did today help mitigate some of that Karen? Sure. I think the reasonzoning we did today on 14th is just as far as noise it may not make it as inhabitable as before but we would I've gotten calls on that too Karen have you? Yes ma'am. So I know that's one. Is anybody else anything to add? I look for is that Daniel? You said is that something we're going to do? We're going to have a discussion about a three or four person abatement team that

No, we are. I mean actually we have a workshop coming up here on the I believe it's the ETH now that that Michelle coordinated. So we'll have an in-depth discussion about that. I wondered if that might be the more appropriate venue, but but I did want to bring it up, especially as we rush toward rodeo and and the visibility of that impact on our community. I think it's important. Okay, great. Thank you. Three or four people employees that I'll take a motion to close this. We got a first from Tommy and a second from Harry. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? None opposed. Let's go home.