City Council - Regular Meeting

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

We have several or three proclamations to read this morning. If I could get everyone that was involved in the National POWMIA Remembrance Day to come up. Throughout American history, generations of patriots have bravely served in our military and sacrificed their lives to protect our country and preserve democracy around the world. More than 125,000 American women and men have been held captive by hostile powers during their military service, and more than 83,000 Americans remain missing from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. Thousands of American prisoners of wa

Now, if there's anyone here for Hispanic Heritage Month, would you please come forward? Got the crew. Good to see y'all. Just for you, ma'am. Hispanic Heritage Month, observed annually from September 15th through October 15th, provides an opportunity to recognize, honor, and celebrate the rich history, culture, traditions, and contributions of Hispanic and Latino Americans. Hispanic families and individuals have been an integral part of the history and development of San Angelo and the Contra Valley for generations. contributing to the growth and vitality of our community through agriculture,

Anybody here with Fire Prevention Week? Anybody here? Brent, I saw you try to hide. Now, if I mispronounce lithium ion, I only get 37 chances in this proclamation to read it, okay? The City of San Angelo is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our community. Fire remains a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and the presence of lithium ion batteries in many household devices introduce unique fire risk. Most of the electronics used in homes daily, including smartphones, tablets, laptops, power tools, e-bikes, e-scooters, and to

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Ritchie. That concludes public. I'd like to make one statement. Over the past weekend, I saw several people at 9-11 memorials. I thought it was totally outstanding. I went to two on Friday, and I went to one Sunday morning. I have never seen them as well as attended as I did this past weekend. I saw members of our SO, our PD, our fire department there carrying 30-pound rucksacks, making 2,700 steps. I saw people there walking San Angelo Stadium in a full, you know, fire attire. I saw PD there in a full uniform. And I just want to say, if you weren't there seeing that, it's outst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did we have to take anything away? Because you mentioned mill and overlay versus full reconstruction. So this is what we would recommend for this road. We're still able to do exactly that.

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

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

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

Thank you for your permission, Ginger. We are good. Is there any more public comment? I love it. Alright, so I have a first and a second public comments complete will take a vote. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Item G passes 7-0. All right, now let's move over to the regular agenda. Comments regarding items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above. To participate, please sign in with the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called in the order they signed in. Comments are limited to the less than three

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

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

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

Patrick, I'll kick it off, and thanks for your question. First thing I want to do is I want to thank the fellow council members and staff and citizens that spent three or four days over the weekend trying to figure out a way to amend this. But I think this is a critical point in what we look at as far as streets. And when we all campaign, the number one thing or the number two thing we always hear behind public safety is streets. And I want to reiterate None of us want to be here in this position, but we've spent a lot of money over the past, since 2014, in that bond money. Now we don't have a

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

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

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

So will we say this is a restricted fund?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I appreciate the fact that if we're asking more of the citizens, we went into our budget and said, where can we cut? I think that's something that's needed. It shows that we are listening. We are trying. Everything has gone up for everybody, for us as citizens, for us as a city. So it's a never-ending cycle of just more and more and more. I mean, I made less this year than I did last year, so I'm going backwards here, and so that's what we've all got to figure out is where we can find that divide. Streets are still the number one complaint that I get. I'll go with number two. Fees are th

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

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

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

Probably not a question, probably more of a comment right now. Many of the people in this room knew that before I retired, I worked for Goodyear. So we did seal coat on 55 miles of road on a regular basis. And the reason we did that is because, as Patrick says, it's a lot less expensive to try to maintain a road with seal coat than it is to replace that whole road. Millions of dollars. And I'm afraid that's what's going to happen. Future councils are going to have to tackle that. My granddaughters are going to have to foot that bill. I'm really thinking that we need to continue the seal coat p

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

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

Yet a lot of things have changed over the last 12 years. Go back to cost of living, cost of inflation, just like Harry said, everything has gone up. Not only the materials, but the employees. And we have to have good employees to perform the work. If we don't maintain those ploys and they go to a different city, we're back to square one and we're not giving a good product. It's a big circle. I know we don't like this fee, and I'm glad you may have lowered it, and I hope we can come to an agreement because we need to keep this program going. I just wanted to reiterate, a lot of things have chan

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT? WITH THAT, I THINK WE COME TO A POINT WHERE We try to find the eloquent words to say this is where we go forward and we take care of streets and try to maintain ourselves for a sustaining city or we walk away and leave some holes in there also which will create headcount and issues in our budget as we come with the next agenda item. So as the mayor, I'll take the position to make the initial motion to approve the ROW infrastructure ordinance as presented at the 875. I have a first from me, and I have a second from Tommy Hebert. Now we're going to go in the public commen

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

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

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

Good morning, council. Name a district, please.

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

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

Three nays. Item passes 4-0. Excuse me, 4-3. Item passes 4-3. All right, it's 1027, y'all. Let's take a break for about 10 minutes. Anybody that wants to come back to City Council? Anybody wants to bring back? Patrick will be here. We're usually waiting on Hebert. Did you beat Hebert? I was waiting for Danny to comment. 1043, we're going to bring the meeting back to order. The second reading and public hearing of an ordinance adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2026 and ending September 30th, 2027. This budget will raise more total property taxes than last year's bud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right. Any questions from the dice? With that, I'll make the motion to read. I move that the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of .7947 per $100 valuation, which is effectively a 3.29% increased tax height. Can I get a second? I have a first from the mayor, a second from Mary Coffey. Any public comment, Heather? No. With no public comment, we'll take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item C passes 7-0. Item D, considering approval and agreement with the San Angelo Police Officers Coalition, establishing certain terms and conditions of employm

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

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

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

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

We'll throw in section two. Consider approving a contract with the San Angelo DMO organization allocating hotel occupancy tax receipts to be used for eligible activities and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Presentation made by Finance Director Jonathan Flores. I'll go with Jeremy. I don't know. We're not going to rank who's better looking at this point. No, let's don't do that.

Jeremy, number one, I want to thank you for the position, the job you've been doing over at the DMO Chamber. You have a dedication there that's unparalleled, and we really appreciate that. Thank you. Because of you and your inputs, and I'm going to use this one to just make a quick announcement also, the Ports to Plains meeting in 2028, because of your efforts, will be coming to San Angelo, Texas. All right, and that will bring us several hundred people. There's a lot of efforts between you and them, and we'll make a more formal announcement on that later. But without your input and without th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a first from Harry Thomas. If y'all only knew the battle to get the number two up here. And a second from Patrick Keeley. Is there any public comment on this item, Heather? We'll look to approve as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? With no opposition, item G passes 7-0. I want to call an audible here and see if we can move item J up next because that is one there's considerable amount of people here. Legal, are you good with that? Brian, I don't know if you have to pump up a different presentation to go to skip to J. First reading in public hearing for the followi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. You alluded to this, but I just want to make sure I heard it accurately. That is a deep lot. You said 900 feet approximately. And narrow 200 feet across. I guess this is an opinion question, your opinion. Would that be, and again, I believe you stated this earlier, but that could likely be the limiting factor on development of a true light manufacturing entity going there just because of the constraint on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you mentioned earlier that I think you used the pronoun they. Is they are going to bring sewer across Chadburn? Is they the potential developer builder of these suggested houses? Is that the they that's going to bring the sewer across? The city's not... That is correct. That would be a developer responsibility. Okay. And water is already available. That is correct. Okay. Mayor, right now that I'll let other folks up here ask questions.

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

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

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

So with this, we're actually just looking at the zoning and the comprehensive plan. So is the conditional use condition of that passing? It is not. So where does that come into play on what we're doing here today on these?

I mean, this kind of goes back to what we already talked about a lot. This adds quite a bit to the tax rolls in a spot that we have not received much in 20, 30, 40 years. If something develops, yeah. Yes, sir. That's the underlying part of this is to make sure it can develop into something because it obviously hasn't been developed as is. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a second from Harry Thomas. We're completed with public comment, correct? Correct. All right, so we will go through and ask for a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Item passes 6-1. I would call for a 10-minute break. Where is it? What have y'all done for lunch? You know what, folks? We're going to make this a 30-minute break. We're going to come back at 1.15.

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

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

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

So, we're going to apply this to both, or just this one? Okay. I would thank that. Yeah, with the question here and, you know, my question to you, Austin, do you think Planning knew, was aware of the difference in ownership of this when they saw that?

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

Should we hear the public comment on it?

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

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

Well, that was very valuable public comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heather, can you start that three minute clock?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right. I've got a first from Patrick. Second. Second from Harry Thomas. Any public comment? No. No public comment. We'll take a vote. All those in favor of approving item I say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item I passes 7-0. we've already done jay we'll move to k first reading public hearing of an ordinance for z26-17 request for a zone change from the rs1 single family residential zoning district to the rs4 small lot residential zoning district located at 3302 grape creek road presentation made by planning and development services director assistant director special operations austin thank you

Joe, it's in your district. Any other questions from the dice? No, sir. No questions. I'll look for a motion. I have a first from Joe Self, a second from, I thought it was Karen, from Mary. We don't want to leave Ms. Mary out. Any public comment on this one? No. No public comment. We'll look for a vote on Item K. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item K passes 7-0. All right, we'll move to Item 11. l first reading public hearing ordinance for z26-18 a request for a zone change from the single family residential and general heavy commercial zoning district to the general commercial

I'll throw this over to you, Karen. I do not have any. Any other questions from the dais? With that, I'll look for a motion. I'll make the motion. Second. I have a first from Karen and a second from Patrick. Any public comment? All right. With no public comment on this item, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of item L say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item L passes 7-0. We've already done M, we'll go to N. First reading and public hearing of an ordinance for ROW 26-07, request for abandonment of 11,198 square feet of street right of way being at the end of Adobe Drive, generally located on the bl

We'll do a motion to try to finish in, correct? Yes, sir. All right. So Hebert, in your district?

So you just want, we're acting only on in?

All right. I have a first from Tommy and a second from Harry. Any questions from the dais? No questions, any public comment? No. No public comment. We'll take a vote on item N. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item N passes 7-0. We'll move to O, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance to amend the master thoroughfare plan and map to remove a .53 mile portion of Adobe Drive as a minor collector and classify it as a local road. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director. This is still Aaron. Aaron Benoit.

Any questions from the dais? With none, I'll look for a motion. Move approval as presented. I have a first from Tommy Hebert. Second from Karen Hesse-Smith. Any public comment? With none, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of items O, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item O passes 7-0. We'll move into closed session. Executive session on the provision of Government Code Title V, Open Government Ethics, Subtitle A, Open Government, Chapter 551, Open Meetings. Subchapter D, Exceptions to Requirements. Our meetings will be open under the following sections. Section A551.071, Consultation with Attorn