City Council - Regular Meeting

And to start it, we'll bring up Chaplain Moore to do our prayers and pledges.

Please join me in saying our pledges. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please join me in prayer. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the privilege of serving this community. We submit this meeting to you today You have told us, oh Lord, what you require to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God. So we ask that you help us to walk faithfully with you today. Grant these council members your wisdom and the strength to walk in your way. May the discussions here be marked by respect, decisions by justice and mercy, and leadership by integrity. Help all who are gathered here to seek the welfare of the city and the good of our neighbors. We also pray for all our city leaders, those who provide safety, infrastructure, education, and a multitude of other needs. We ask for your protection and guidance for those who faithfully serve this community. We ask this in your holy name, Lord Jesus. Amen.

We have one recognition to read this morning. Could I have everybody with the Concho Cowboy Company's 20th anniversary celebration please come forward. We're not going to have to go out and try to guess who you are. The Concho Cowboy Company has been riding into the hearts of the people of San Angelo, Tom Green County, and the visitors from near and far since 2006, keeping the spirit of the Old West alive through boots on the ground Western entertainment. For 20 years, the Concho Cowboy Company has brought history to life through lively reenactments, educational programs, and family-friendly performances, proving that learning about the past is best done with authenticity, enthusiasm, and a well-timed punchline. Founded in 2006 through the leadership and vision of Richard Porter, President Karen Smith, Vice President, and Jack Smith, Secretary-Treasurer, the Concho Cowboy Company was organized by individuals committed to preserving Western heritage and sharing it in a way that is engaging, accessible, and fun. Through partnerships with historic sites, schools, museums, festivals, and community events, the Concho Cowboy Company has transformed dusty pages of history into living experiences while sharing Texas values of courage, humor, and community. The dedication and volunteer spirit of its members have earned the Concho Cowboy Company numerous honors, including being named True West Magazine Reenactors of the Year by the magazine's readers, and have carried their performances to over 1,000 audiences across the country, from Texas to Tombstone, Arizona, and as far north as Wichita, Kansas. Now, therefore, I, Tom Thompson, Mayor of the City of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize the Concho Cowboy Company's 20th anniversary celebration in San Angelo and Tom Green County. And I encourage all citizens to recognize and celebrate 20 years of Western entertainment, historical preservation, and community service done the Concho Cowboy way. So somebody's got to have some words. Appointed.

You know, this group, like I say, we've been together 20 years, and we love the Old West. We try to be as authentic as we can in our dress and our weapons and our skits. I'm going to tell you how our skits get going, like I tell anybody that'll listen to me. We do skits that could have happened in the Old West. They probably did happen, and if they didn't, they should have. So we try to put a little comedy in whatever and what we do. We write our own skits, and I'll have to say, whoops, if I don't tear the thing up, Mr. Porter here does most of the skit writing with a little help from everybody on this stage. If anybody has never been to Christmas at Old Fort Concho to see our town set up on the fence at Oaks, We'd love to have y'all come out this Christmas. We do two skits on Saturday and one on Sunday. And we always have a great, great time. And we've had, well, we just love doing what we do. We'd like to see you there. Richard Porter is Will Killam. Madam Sunshine is Karen Smith. Miss Violet. And I just, my mind went blank. Heather. Heather. Good Lord. Swifty is Kerry Stewart. And Jingles, which would be my deputy, is Roger Banks. And I got to tell you something about Roger. He's been fighting bone cancer. He did his last infusion today. And those two have been a great addition to our group and I'm Jack Smith and I'm Marshall Cactus Jack. They say I'm bulletproof and as many times as he's tried to shoot me I guess I am. So I guess you what guys y'all come see us we've been to 50 over 50 towns in the state of Texas and in Tombstone Arizona we've been out there and love that area and one of my best favorite places to play besides Fort Concho is Old Cowtown in Wichita, Kansas. If you ever get that way and we're there, come see us. Thank you for the honor. We appreciate it.

All right, at this point, we'll move into public comment at 5.38 PM. 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. Heather, call the first one.

Kayla Hood.

Hi, everybody. My name is Kayla Hood. I live on 829 Fairview School Road. I moved to San Angelo in 2013. During that year, I started working for Child Protective Services as a family-based safety services caseworker. I did this for almost five years and then became a stay-at-home mom. And during that time, I decided to give my life to nonprofit work. I joined Junior League. I volunteered my time in the community. I chaired projects, and I even brought a Home Run Heroes to town, which is a baseball game for children with special needs. I now sit on two nonprofit boards. I love giving back to my community. I have a huge heart for children and families in need. With that being said, I want to explain exactly why I'm opposed to the Rock Rose Community Campus's location on Gas Plant Road. Mike states from CVCAA that it will not bring crime, it will not bring foot traffic, and that it will not devalue our homes. I'm not going to dwell on that conversation because we all know exactly what that's going to do to our neighborhood. I do want to look at the bigger picture here. At this campus, at this location, it is going to be 112 acres. That's going to make Rockrose Community Campus the biggest in Texas and in the United States. Mike wants to copy the community first village model out of Austin, Texas. That is currently operating at 51 acres. When it is said and done, it'll be operating at 170 acres. At that point, it will become the biggest one in the United States and in Texas. Rock Rose will then be number two. Biggest campus of its kind right here in San Angelo, Texas. I want to paint a picture for how big this is going to be. I spoke to a Dallas City Councilwoman the other day. In 2027, they're going to be bringing in the largest Salvation Army in the world. That's only at 21 acres. Skid Row in Los Angeles, a campus that resembles Rock Rose, sits at 30 acres combined. Haven for Hope in San Antonio, that is 22 acres. St. Angelo is known for some really great things, our amazing rodeo, the ASU Rams, such a giving community that we are. But now St. Angelo, if this location is approved, will be known as having the largest homeless and low income housing campus of its kind in the United States. Mike stood in front of you and fed you lies and information. He states that there's 20 or 30 partners ready to tackle this project. I'm here to tell you right now that is not true. I have personally contacted most of these partners and they advised there's no such partnership in place. There's also a podcast where Mike states that Shannon will be on this campus at a medical facility providing medical care to homeless and low-income individuals. I spoke to Shannon personally yesterday and today. That is not true. St. Angelo is raging mad about the data center coming in, but imagine what St. Angelo is going to say when they think, whenever they hear, that one of the largest campuses for homeless and low-income will be right here too. Mike Burnett is not the man to run such an extravagant project, and city council members, please, when a project this massive is presented in front of you, please ask more questions. Please get your facts straight, or I'm going to be doing it for you next time. Thank you.

Second William Hood.

Hello, my name is Will Hood. You may recognize my name for the previous speaker. I moved to San Angelo in 2013. My first home was purchased off of North Harrison. When my son was born, we purchased our home off of 829 Fairview School Road in 2018. I travel out of town for work and my family's safety is incredibly important to me. So I wanted to pick up where my wife left off on the opposition for Rockrose. So I wanted to name some of the so-called partners with the Rockrose campus that were presented on their website. Tom Green County Sheriff's Department, turns out that that logo was stolen off their website. They had no idea it was on there. St. Angelo Fire Department, the fire chief contacted them yesterday to have their logo removed. West Texas Rehab, that logo was also stolen. Their leadership is livid that it was advertised on their website. And then, of course, my wife mentioned Shannon. And I quote, not tracking any commitment with CVCAA. CVCAA's flyer on their website's been changed multiple times. Their partner logos have been removed for obvious reasons. The map's been changed to make it more simplistic, which is funny. The part of the map that shows future residential neighborhood development, that's the part that's right across the street from homes into daycare. In response to our opposition, Rockrose posted, we recognize those neighbors and have been mindful of those properties in our planning. What? Most of these people didn't even know right across the street that this campus was even going to be built. CVCAA stated, security will be in place for two purposes. It protects the people on campus That's my favorite part, and benefits the surrounding community as well. If CVCAA needs security at this campus, that means they're expecting trouble. Ask yourself, what kind of a facility needs security? CVCAA stated, a trained team that works in coordination with local law enforcement. Well, we've spoken to ranking officers at SAPD and Tom Green County Sheriff's Department. They look at us like we're crazy and say, this is bad. I'm moving on here, sorry. If the ones that protect and serve our community guys don't back this project, why would we? We've been asked to have facts, not fear. We didn't have to go very far to get facts. Most of our information came from online, residents and businesses that live near like facilities and CVCA's so-called partners. What else would you like for us to dig up? At this point, we have zero interest in hearing about the operation of Rockrose. CVCAA can't even get their facts straight or run a website. If Rockrose campus goes up, we can't stay. Ask yourself, how would you feel getting pushed out of the only place you feel safe? Thank you for your comment.

Number three, Heather.

Steve Burns.

I know Steve's here. I saw him a long ago.

Good evening. My name is Steve Burns. I've lived for over 50 years on 55 acres at 582 Fairview School Road. All my property lies within the Wald Independent School District in Tom Green County. My property line is about 350 yards from the proposed Concho Valley Rock Rose Community Campus. We outside the city were never told of any of this by those involved, and I still haven't been. While I feel there is a need for those truly seeking help and long-term positive change, I feel very strongly that this is the wrong location and on too large a scale, and I oppose this project. There are more than 60 homes in our neighborhood, which is an established socioeconomic mix of young families with children drawn to the school district, working people, business owners, and retirees. There is also a long-running daycare, as was previously mentioned, immediately across the street from the proposed Rock Rose campus. I fail to see any positive effect the Rock Rose campus would bring to our neighborhood. However, a quick tour of San Angelo's growing homeless situation quickly confirms our neighborhood fears of increased crime, safety concerns, and falling property values. No matter how it is to be run, I suspect those strongly in favor of this or who may work at this facility in the future will head off to their homes located nowhere near the campus. We won't. That is our home. Reportedly, the main service area for this project would encompass an 11-county area, including the city of San Angelo, and could potentially service up to 14,000 individuals annually through various programs. With so much at stake and with so few of the affected landowners even knowing about this done deal, I am amazed that the voting citizens of San Angelo and Tom Green County have no say in this very non-transparent project, which could very likely make San Angelo the hub for homelessness for West Texas and possibly the state and beyond. But if this project is meant to be, please start modestly. preferably on non-taxable, non-income producing city-owned land away from healthy, growing, well-established neighborhoods such as ours. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Steve.

Number four, Heather.

Coco Simpson.

Coco.

How's it going? Different thing to gripe about than Rock Rose, which I'm with that one too. I wanted to talk about flock cameras with y'all. Currently, there are over 20 of them around St. Angelo. I don't know if y'all have even noticed these cameras. I'll approve them. And we have paid for them through our tax dollars. Roughly $309,000 has come out to those flock cameras, and they run $2,500 to $3,000 a year to keep. So that's 20-plus of them. That is what I counted on deflocks. So $60,000, in essence, is what we're paying for these cameras, which, as a cop, I think we're kind of low on law enforcement right now looking for budget. There's your budget right there. Benjamin Franklin had a fabulous quote about those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither. And right now those flock cameras are 1,000% Fourth Amendment violations of illegal search and seizure. Your police officers have... Mr. Sargent has come up here and said that they are used for... to control law enforcement to help with crime. There have been no studies that show that crime has dropped due to flock cameras. And in fact, there have been more crimes because of the flock cameras. Day after day, I get on my Twitter feed and there's another cop that has been busted for stalking using flock cameras. These cameras record the license plates, the details of a vehicle. They now have things that can capture the signals in a vehicle. So if you have somebody riding with you, it can capture every electronic signal in your vehicle. So you, your friends, their watches, their phones, I mean, anything that has an electronic thing, your kids, your kids' cell phones, all of these things, these cameras can capture all of this. And it's not just pictures that these cameras are capturing. They are live videos that a third party owns. The city of San Angelo does not own this data. We have to ask for that data from somebody. There have been numerous safety data breaches with this information. So you have everybody in St. Angelo, the 20 of them that are around. There's one on College Hills in your neighborhood. There's one out 277 heading towards Cristobal. There's a whole bunch of them at Shannon. Right when you go into the Shannon parking lot, what kind of data would that be useful for? You know, there's a whole lot of these around San Angelo, that don't need to be here. If y'all need help, the police law enforcement needs help, there are plenty of methods for them to get a warrant and search for people and track them down. They are not needed. It is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars that could be better used for an actual law enforcement officer. And it's a Fourth Amendment violation. Across the country, these cameras are coming down. And I would rather y'all be on the forefront of this and take them down now. Let's be done with this. there's no reason for them to be here. Thank you.

Thank you, Coco. Number five.

Jamal Schumpert.

Jamal Schumpert, SMD3. It's a pretty tough crowd today, Mayor. I had a lot of criticism, but I think I'd rather go with the party. I would want to Last week, I went up to the school board and offered them an opportunity to celebrate Freedom Week. This time, I want to engage in an opportunity for you to probably join with them and celebrate Freedom Week. Maybe spend a million dollars, shut down four corners of downtown, and let's just celebrate. It's probably going to be another 50 years before we get another chance to celebrate this way. I think we should take advantage of it. The next generation, they'll be alive to bring these memories from this 250 to the 300. This is an opportunity where you can blow some money. And the way I would like for it to be done, but you can do it however you want because it's a free dumb 250. Everything should be free. We should pay for these restaurants to come down there and set up and offer tickets for us and we sign up. and have not a petition, but let's say more or less an attendance signature to say, hey, you were here to celebrate the 250. So 50 years from now, some of those people can come back and say, hey, I did it two times. But beyond that, we shouldn't probably have to pay to celebrate something we fought to get, right? Whether you're white, black, whatever color you are, you had your individual fight to be here today and to be free. So I think maybe we can get away from so much divisiveness and have a time to just Let everything go. And maybe September 18th to the 24th, maybe that Saturday we shut down downtown and have a good old celebration. Because you can tell everybody's a little upset. Might need a restart. I have criticism, but I'm not going to put it here. I prefer this to be positive. Thank you.

Thank you, Jamal. Number six.

Chyna Young.

Hello, China Young, SMD4. First, just thank you all for having an evening meeting. I've advocated previously that perhaps alternating meetings each month. So one meeting at 8.30, one meeting at 5.30. Maybe it's something to consider for the 2027 calendar. That might make it easier for people to more regularly show up to one or the other at least once a month. So just want to continue advocating for that for future civic engagement for our community. Second, the impending data center is still a very hot topic in town, and even after months of discussing the issues with leadership and the public, I'm still meeting people who barely know what's going on, but the more people learn, the more against it they are. We have discussed statistics and water use, land use, sound ordinances, wastewater, electricity, jobs. We've presented facts. We've been accused of spreading misinformation. We've also been told that the status center will double our tax base and fund infrastructure and projects that we need. But in fact, actually, many Texas leaders I've heard have been claiming that these data centers are the only thing that might save struggling rural communities like San Angelo. But a question that still lingers for me is how responsible is it to put so much hope for our future in the promise of a single industry? Since others have brought up Rockroads, I just want to emphasize that the development and the inevitable collapse of this industry, which tech companies are currently struggling with, the loss of profits, because the industry's bubble is already starting to pop. that if we bring it in, we have the potential to turn all of San Angelo into a giant rock rose, but without the social safeguards that the campus would provide because this would impact over half of our tax base when the bottom falls out. So just something to consider, be responsible in the future for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Chyna. Next, Heather.

Nancy Treadwell.

Good evening. Nancy Treadwell, SMD 6. The data center isn't going away on all the issues and that kind of thing, but I have a proposal whereby you might be able to silence some of your critics, and that is Skybox is going to be spending millions and millions and millions of dollars to bring in this data center and to bring in the stacks and three years or five years from now they're going to have to spend money or we're going to have to spend money to deal with all those used up stacks and put them somewhere there are all the issues that people have brought up as far as sound and this kind of thing well here is your opportunity and skyboxes to put an end to this Skybox, which is willing to put up millions of dollars, should be willing to put up a few million more. And what I propose they do, and what you do as leaders not only of this city, but the state, my gosh, even the nation, has Skybox before the data center goes up. Build each of you a home by the data center where it will be located before it is built. If there are no harms in data centers, shouldn't be a problem. Have them face north-south so the wind will blow and you'll get all those cooling airs, except of course we have the problem with Dove Creek and the possible 697,000 or 697 tons of air pollution that is not only going to blow towards San Angelo, but you'll also get all that lovely West Texas sand when it comes to see us and the farmers need to come for their topsoil. Put an end to your critics. Be leaders in the nation. I suspect our president would be happy to put a data center right under the East Wing ballroom or on top when you set the example. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nancy. Number eight.

Council Member Harry Thomas.

Harry.

All right. I was elected to do a job in May of 23 by the constituents of Sigelman District 3. That job was not finished until May of 27. I don't intend to quit early. Now, I'm sorry that the group out there thinks that I was going to just step away from this job. That's not going to happen. In the words of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we have awoken a sleeping giant. And folks, you have not seen anybody fight until you've been around me. I've been sworn at, accused of taking bribes, yelled at, and threatened. All the while, I have not said anything. No more. I will not stand by and say nothing. I will not take the abuse that I've been taking, especially when the majority of those people doing this are not from District 3 and some are not even from San Angelo. Thank you.

Next. Okay, that concludes public comment. At this point, we'll move to the consent agenda, and we will move from left to right as you look up. Mary, do you have anything to pull?

I just have an overall question on item C. So we're going to pull C. Okay, yeah. Okay.

Karen? No. Nothing to pull. Patrick?

None.

None to pull. I have nothing to pull. Harry? H. Harry wants to pull item H. No. Joe? Nothing. Councilman Hebert?

No.

Nothing to pull. So I'll look to make a motion for all items except C and H. Can I get a motion? I have a first from Tommy Hebert and a second from Harry Thomas. Heather, do you have any public comment on any items excluding C and H? Jamal, come on down.

Jamal Schumber, SMD3. On item B, I was wondering if we could decrease the price for those people that maybe they're retiring or whatnot, but $10.50 a square foot for, I think it's a retainer well. It's kind of high. But beyond that, if that's the running price for your land at the lake, It's probably going to be hard to sell at $400,000 an acre. We're selling industrial land at $45,000 an acre. So that's kind of why I said that. Let's see. Am I talking about C?

On G. You were talking about B, correct? Yes, yes. B is in Bravo. Yeah.

And on G, right-of-way acquisitions. Maybe we could pay them a little bit more for some of their land. I think it was 17 properties, because we're going to increase the foot traffic in probably traffic period once we put the sidewalks there. It's a great project. But I wouldn't want to short stick them. I don't know how much we're going to be offering them. We won't know that until we do the surveys. So I just wanted to get ahead of that. And M. I would have liked for that to be on the regular agenda. Those people out there were concerned. Y'all are doing a lot of work, and I feel like y'all are going to change the scope of how they live. They're real happy at quarter-acre homes. I wouldn't want to go any lower than that. But that's it. Thank you.

Jamal, thank you very much. Any more public comment? Heather?

Ann Joseph?

Ann? So we're talking about am.

Good afternoon. My name is Ann Joseph. I reside in SMD number 2. My focus is on PD26-01, which is listed under today's consent agenda as 5 Mike. At the 7 July City Council meeting, Exhibit C for PD26-01 was presented as a site plan. Quote, it has been reworked by SKG Engineering utilizing the RS5 infill residential district design standards. I initially questioned the claim that SKG Engineering had reworked the site plan because I did not see their logo anywhere. That initial doubt led me to more closely study Exhibit C, and here's what I discovered. The drives do not appear to meet fire safety standards. Their width is only approximately 15 feet. The five houses along Bonham do not meet Section 501 residential district standards for RS-5 zoning, which requires a minimum of one dedicated parking space per unit. The square footage for 10 of the homes appears to be approximately 875 square feet. That's a 25 foot by 35 foot as cited by Mr. Vannoy at last meeting and confirmed by using a grid overlay wherein each grid is 5 foot by 5 foot. The square footage for the other five homes facing Bonham is approximately 750 square feet. Are homes that small really going to serve the needs of families with children who will be walking to and from local schools? Do members of the city council think it is wise to move forward approving this PD without something more concrete which is actually in alignment with fire safety codes and RS5 zoning standards, while also truly meeting the needs of families with children? Now, if you do choose to move forward with approving this PD, I beg you before you approve it, you first set in place two stipulations. Number one, please clearly prohibit the use of any of these homes from ever being made into short-term rentals. A University of Pennsylvania publication from 2024 shows a positive correlation between Airbnb growth and an uptick in theft, burglary, and robbery. Nobody wants that, but especially when near a high school. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health stated in 2021 that when entire homes become short-term rentals, it erodes the natural ability of a neighborhood to prevent crime. Fundamentally, the neighborhood loses the natural surveillance and social cohesion that long-term residents provide. And the second request is to please stipulate that these structures will only be one story high. This stipulation would be necessary because the current RS-5 standard allows for two-and-a-half-story structures. Mr. Mayor, I would like to remind you that regarding this specific plan development, you quite rightly stated at the last City Council meeting, we don't want to see multiple stories. Thank you very much for your time and your attention. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to address them.

Thank you, Ann.

Thank you.

Heather, any more public comment?

Not at this time.

OK. Sure. He can ask a question of an awakening on.

OK.

So at this point, Brandon, let's be clear here. If Joe wants to ask a comment about an item, do we need to go ahead and pull it and move it over?

I mean, you can do that, but, I mean, we haven't taken a vote on it, so I think it's appropriate to do it here, too.

All right, I think it's appropriate to do it here.

My main question is, moving forward with M, they do have to meet the requirements for the fire department to get in there, correct?

Yes, they will.

No matter what we say they can or can't do, the fire department has to get in there, correct?

That is correct.

Okay. That was my main concern, is public safety and something like that, because that's been presented in other things.

That's correct.

Okay, that's all I had.

Mary, you had a question?

Along the same lines with Em, did this from... Um, With SK Engineering, did that come in after our first reading? No, ma'am. Are these new discoveries?

No, ma'am. That came in. That was in our slideshow that was in the background packet information when it was in the first reading. And that is simply a concept plan, not a site plan. That's why there's not as many dimensions. The site plan comes when they actually submit a permit for a single-family residential home. That's when we look at the site plan for all conformancy for all of our building codes and fire codes.

That was the clarification I needed. Thank you. Thank you, Tom.

Any further questions for Aaron? With that, thank you, Mr. Vernau. Thank you. Any additional? Any further public comment anywhere else? All right. I have a first from Tom Hebert and a second from Harry Thomas for all items except C and H. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All items pass 7-0. We'll move to item C, consider approving purchase of construction equipment in the amount of $4,617,277 to various respondents and authorizing an assistant city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. I'm not going to read all of those, but we'll go here with just saying we're just pulling item C. Is that okay, attorney? Legal, is that okay?

Good evening. Sorry about the caption, Mr. Mayor. How could I address any concerns here? Who pulled C?

I did. Are you having a problem? It's not coming on. Ryan, are all of these, is this to replace dilapidated equipment or obsolete equipment?

Yes, ma'am. For the majority, that is what's happening. We are purchasing some new efficiency items that are included in there, but the majority is replacing exactly what we have now.

Do you have an idea of the age on some of those, or are they just not meeting the needs?

Most of the construction equipment is approximately six years old. Some of it is older than that, but very well used, as you can see our crews around town.

What will happen with the... These new items are going to replace these others. What are those going to be used for? Are we going to sell them or scrap, or what do we do with that?

The old ones, there's a lot of information in it, but within that bid tab, we did request trade-in offerings. And so most, if not all of that, I can think of one piece that we're not trading in that we will put through our surplus auction, but the rest of it will be traded in to help us reduce that capital expense.

Good deal. That was my blanket question. Thank you, Ryan.

Any further questions? I'll look for a motion. I have a first from Mary. I have a second from Joe Self. Any public comment on item C, Heather? Jamal?

Jamal Shumpert, SMD3. I just had to make a comment on a couple of items, the backhoe in particular, because I remember when I was working on the railroad, they're very, very useful and good, especially if you want to dig ditches or rearrange your stormwater, because I still haven't seen any work. I know y'all cut it in my area off the Two Now Bridge, but I haven't seen any dirt work to stop all that extra flood, I mean all that puddling. weeks beyond raining that builds a lot of insects. Although y'all did spray a second time.

So we're talking about the purchase price of the equipment. We have to stay on the topic here, Jamal.

Yes, and how it's implemented. We're going to spend money. We want to make sure it's implemented well for the reasons we're saying we're spending the money for. It doesn't say what we're spending this money for. So I don't know if the backhoe is going to be on water utility installing pipes, digging for that. or we're going to use it for stormwater. It's all water utilities purchases. So I just wanted to make sure we're going to use it right, because we did make some purchases for stormwater, and I haven't seen any dirt work in my area. The state did come out and try to stabilize it up under the bridge, which is what they're supposed to do. But I haven't seen the city do anything but cut. And I think it was the solid waste guy. Will this truck stop it from stinking? He stops in my area for lunch and after school. I mean, you can smell him a block away. I'm hoping this truck is legitimate to where we can't smell that solid waste. And that's all I have.

We'll make a note to Ferrick to put air fresheners in this truck. Try to help the best we can, Jamal. No promises.

All right, thank you.

Any additional public comment? Okay, so we'll look. We have a first from Mary and a second from Joe Self on item C. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. Item C passes 7-0. Now we'll move over to item H. Consider authorizing an expenditure not to exceed $5,090,332.75 in matching funds for the purchase of qualifying properties and related activities under the Natural Resource Conservation Services Emergency Watershed Protection Program and authorizing an assistant city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Glad to see you, Patrick. You're on.

Yes, sir. So if you all will remember, we are participating in the NRCS's Emergency Watershed Protection Program. A few council meetings, I came to you all with an item for the NRCS Armoring Program. This is now the second side of that. This is the NRCS buyback program. Whenever we went through and we identified a list of properties that would be in the floodway or be prone to flood damage in heavy rain events, we sent that list of properties off to the NRCS. They went through and they quantified those properties and put a dollar amount attributed to them. sent it up for approval. That dollar amount came out to about $21 million. When we got the contract back, our responsibility to that $21 million, if we were to do it all, is 25% or approximately $5 million. So that is what is written to the contract. If you all will remember, you all authorized us to only spend $1.8 million of money in this program. So from staff's perspective, we can only purchase what an equivalent of 25% of properties would be up to $1.8 million plus any in-kind services that we have. So this item is before you today simply so that we can sign a contract that has a $5 million number on it because you guys did not necessarily authorize the $5 million. but I can only spend what you've authorized me in cash up to $1.8 million. So this is really just a paperwork issue so that we can sign the contract, get this program going, and get these properties bought and get this program started.

Patrick, real quickly, will you tell the public what happens when we take one of these properties?

So as part of the program, there are stipulations on the property whenever we buy them within the deed itself. When that ownership transfers to the city, that deed is fully restricted from any type of structural improvement on that property from that point forward. So when we get the property, If there's any structures on there, be it fences, homes, outbuildings, whatever it is, short of any trees or anything, any vegetation like that, we have to clear off those structures. That's part of the program is to protect those structures from further damage from any flooding. So we will strip that property clean. We will also do grading and dirt work in order to facilitate flow of that water within that area. And that's why we have a very focused area that we want to improve, right? We want to get these properties because there's so many along that East Angelo draw and Arrow Street area that we do not own. We want to get that, improve that drainage way, make sure that the flooding and the waters flow smoothly through that area. So we will strip it clean, do the dirt work and grading.

So we're in charge 100% of all the demolition, all the costs, all the haul.

We are in charge of it, and then we will be reimbursed by the feds for that cost. But we're on the hook for 25% of that total cost. Who pulled this?

Harry. I did pull it. Very good. My only question was, how quickly can we start doing this? Because some of these people, and some of them were my friends on Short Street, some of these people have been waiting more than a year.

As soon as y'all say yes and my friends in legal get it put in DocuSign, we'll get it signed and going.

I promise we'll be waiting on legal.

Like how I did that? Thank you, Brandon.

Could I get a motion? So moved. I have a first from Harry, a second from Councilman Self. Any public comment?

Sure. Do we have an idea? This, I guess, would be if every property said, yes, we want you to buy it from us so we can move on. We have an idea of how many people are going to try to take us up on that?

So I have a list of about 10 members who have been actively engaged with me through correspondence, through emails, wanting updates. We're going to hit those 10 right away because we know that they are absolutely willing. And then I'm going to find that next group of high priority, and then I'm going to work through that. So we're going to do this in a stair-step manner so that we can manage the project so that we don't get overwhelmed because it's going to be our crews doing the work. that are doing that. So obviously we're going to have to set aside some of our normal work to get this done, but I think it's absolutely advantageous to get to do that. But those 10 are going to be handled first, and then I'm going to work through our priority list to make sure that we can maximize that $1.8 million and get the biggest bang for our buck out of it.

I think they can try. Sorry, go back to this. On those, do you have to have the work done before NRCS will fork over their portion?

Right. So we have to fully have it completely done, buy the property, remediate it, and then we'll submit for reimbursement and they'll reimburse us for that.

And then we can pay the homeowner then?

We actually pay the homeowner before we ever do any work. We have to fully own the property before we can go on there and do any work on it.

How do we make sure those others that aren't living there that have been, how do we make sure they're reached? Do we have good information on that? Do we have good publicity on that so that they know this is an avenue? We do.

We have a list. So through the CAD, we have all the addresses, so they're required to get a certified letter. So it'll be a certified letter that goes out to each of those property owners. Obviously, if they don't get it, that'll be returned to us, and that'll give us the opportunity to go find a better way to contact them, a better address or mailing address or whatever. whatever the case may be. But right now, we do have a list of addresses that we can send them out to. Some of them, again, have reached out and said, hey, send it to this address so I can make sure I get it. But we're pretty confident that we can at least get this program well started with the contacts that we have. Gotcha. Thank you. Yes, sir.

There it goes. On the $1.8 million, that's what we can spend, but on this reimbursement from the feds on the work that we do, could that actually exceed that $1.8 million that we would be out? Could this be a wash?

We are authorized to be reimbursed up to $21 million. Okay. If we bought every property that we wanted to buy and we had a full $5 million to match, we could be reimbursed up to $21 million. Okay. We won't get to that point because we've only been authorized to spend the $1.8 million. But hopefully, in the perfect world, we would spend the $5 million and get reimbursed the $21 million. But we'll be reimbursed about the $1.8 million gets us about a $9.2 million project out of this.

Go on the hole on it. Any additional questions?

Sorry, I jumped over.

With that, we've got a first from Harry Thomas, a second from Joe Self. Any public comment?

Jamal Shumpert.

Jamal Shumpert, SMD3. I was a little confused when I was reading the documents. I thought that they asked us for an estimate, and our estimate was 1.8, and then they came back with 21. So I guess I was wrong on that. But getting about a $9 million to $21 million, that's about a $12 million shortfall. Those people, less than 50% of them will be helped out if you don't do the whole $5 million, or closer. So I'm not sure why we stopped it at $1.8 million. Are we going to take a million from Development Corporation Valley for that, or? It's not a lot of information here. I don't mean to be asking questions, but I live in the area. I know what it looks like. I don't even know the properties. This was 2,000 properties affected. And of all the region of all the floods, it was a total of 4,000. A lot of these numbers look kind of funny and weird how they're arranged. And then the wording. Like, I'm almost sure that we were supposed to give an estimate. Our estimate was 1.8. Or maybe we haven't given an estimate. And if you look down at the deliverables, some of those are time dated and short time. I would get a whole group of people together and attack this really hard, people who you really trust. Because if they mess up on some of these federal things, it's real easy to get that money taken back. And I'd hate for us to be in a situation like that where we tried to help somebody and we misinterpreted or misread something on there. And now the feds coming to get it. Thank you.

Thank you, Jamal. Any additional public comment? All right. So I'll go back to have a first from Harry Thomas and a second from Joe Self. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item H passes 7-0. We'll move 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 order they 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 their remarks to less than five minutes. We'll go to item A, submission of the recall petition filed on June 22nd, 2026 pertaining to pertaining to Mayor Thomas Tom N. Thompson and the City Clerk's certification of the petition that is insufficient pursuant to Section 48 of the City Charter. Presentation made by City Clerk Heather Stachny. Heather, you're on.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. This item is for presentation only. It does not require any action by Council. Just to give citizens watching and yourselves just a little bit of background, on April 21st, 2026, an affidavit seeking the recall of Mayor Tom Thompson was filed in the city clerk's office in accordance with city charter. Under Section 48 of the Charter, petitioners had 60 days to circulate and return that petition. The petition was submitted to the City Clerk's Office on June 22, 2026, and upon receipt, my office conducted the review required by the Charter. The Charter requires the City Clerk certify the validity and sufficiency of petition within 30 days after it is returned. As part of that review, we first counted the total number of signatures submitted to determine whether the petition contained enough signatures to meet the minimum threshold required by charter. Based on that first initial review, the petition did not contain a sufficient number of signatures to meet the required threshold. excuse me, because the petition was insufficient on its face, a signature by signature validation was not necessary as the petition could not qualify regardless of the validity of the individual signatures. So consistent with the charter, I have certified the petition insufficient and that certification has been provided to council today. Again, this item is... For presentation and information only, no action is required, but I'm happy to answer any questions regarding the petition at this time, if you have any.

Does anybody have any questions? I've been forbidden to speak by assistant city managers, so with all that, we'll move on to item B. Are we good to go forward?

Yeah, no public comment.

All right. Item B, consider approving $42,000 in tax increment reinvestment zone support to be equally split between north and south zones for the San Angelo Police Department's Pan, Tilt, and Zoom camera project. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director Aaron Vinoy. Aaron, you're on.

Thank you, Mayor. Aaron Fennoy, Director of Planning and Development Services. This evening we have an item that went to our TIRS board this last month. It is something that is within our finance plan from 2006 and again adopted by City Council in 2012, which is for public safety. And I'm going to read that exactly what it says in our finance plan. In order to overcome the perception of blight and to increase the safety of the area, the zone may pay for enhancements to public safety including items such as security cameras, specialized equipment, security lighting, or other extraordinary public safety amenities. These funds are intended to be used primarily for capital purchases. That was within our plan in 2006 and in 2012 and it was reaffirmed again last August when y'all redid the tiers looking at the next 10 years of the tiers saying that is something that's still important to us. So this did go in front of our tiers board. The SAPD group is asking for an additional 42,000 to enhance the camera situation within our tiers district. As you know, our north tiers district has major thoroughfares of Bryant and North Chadburn, lots of areas that we have lots of activity in. And then our south tiers is our downtown where we hold parades, events, fireworks, Fort Concho, all of these things that can have mass gatherings these things are safety enhancements and they are to protect our citizens and our visitors that is what their purpose is and that's why they're they're asking for these funds this is a way for our tears program to continue to help and solidify the safety of our citizens and those small businesses in those areas. And it's also a way to move this cost from a general fund cost to the tiers fund cost to help that area. I also have Chief Craig Thompson with me if you have any questions for him, but I'm happy to answer any questions on the tiers board portion itself.

Any questions from the dais?

Craig.

Even.

Hello. Our packets indicated that there was a lengthy internal discussion about the future of license plate reader technology and a desire to maintain public trust. I'm reading from what was provided to us. And that there is an interest in possibly developing your own LPR network that is locally built, managed, and stored. Can you enlighten us a little bit on that, please? Yes, ma'am.

So as Flock was discussed earlier, this would be different. It would be a local network that's secured through CJIS compliance and all the things technological through our city IT. So it would be locally stored, all that information. It would be the cities or the police departments. And that discussion has been had. Yes, ma'am.

Any more? I'm not sure how to follow up on that, but I'm glad to hear that you did have that discussion and that you are taking public concerns seriously and that that's an option. Well, these, let's see if they can be turned on.

There we go. Will these cameras be able to be seen live from the resource center?

Yes, sir.

Command center.

They won't be monitored 24-7, but we would be able to, say, remote into those, say there's a crash, if there's a violent crime. Our crime analysts would be able to remote into those cameras and give officers responding real-time information as well as gather evidence for any sort of crime that may be committed.

I know y'all are trying to find... technological ways to do more with less people, to be more efficient. At what point do we have too many cameras? With the flock cameras, with these cameras, with the drones first responder, at what point are we seeing a camera on every corner?

It's hard to say. I mean, it's, what, roughly 62 square miles in the city of San Angelo. Right now, with the pan tilt zoom cameras funded by Tiers, it'd give us about 20, approximately, depending on cost. We're still building them. The license plate readers are stationary flock cameras. Right now, we have about approximately 14 that are the PDs, so not a substantial amount.

Do we have any evidence of these? Do y'all have any active, or will these be the first ones?

The PTZs? Yes. We had one up at the Lone Wolf Bridge in regard to some graffiti. We had some suspects we were able to actually see, but no, this is kind of a new project we're working on.

And these will just be on the public streets? Intersections.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And just to clarify, no audio, no facial recognition. Retention will be about approximately four days before they're overwritten.

Any additional questions?

Mary? Just along with what Karen and both Patrick, you've said, does this qualifier be construed as a flock camera?

No, ma'am. Okay. It's like a CCTV, if you will.

Okay. Okay. And this is all you said. I'm just reiterating that it's not shared outside. This is just San Angelo PD.

That is correct for law enforcement purposes. Yes, ma'am.

What was the type of camera that was able to catch the person that was a hit and run that

I'm glad you asked, a flock camera. That was, okay. And I feel we would still be looking for that suspect if it wasn't for that camera.

Okay, I just needed that clarification. Thank you, Craig.

Yes, ma'am.

Craig, did you say you keep the data for about four days?

That's correct, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

We're trying to keep the retention low. And we're always open to have conversations about all the things. I think we're pretty approachable, and please reach out to me personally if you have any questions in regard to public.

Well, and we encourage anybody that has those questions to reach out to PD, Police Department, PIO, to ask questions to, I say, reduce the fear of what we're trying to accomplish here with public safety.

Yes, at the end of the day, crime's evolving. We have to evolve, and we want to make San Angelo one of the safest cities in the state.

Any additional questions? With that, I'll look for a motion.

So moved.

I have a first from Harry Thomas.

Second.

Second from Tommy Hebert. Any public comment on this? Heather, any public comment? Coco.

Once again, Fourth Amendment violation of right to privacy. I will say $42,000, if you all read that packet, there's $900,000 that are going into these cameras. The $42,000 is just the tiers part of it. The rest of it comes from a comprehensive plan, another part from COSA DC, and another grant. So $42,000 is the tiers part of it. What are we allocating for maintenance of these cameras, for software updates, for storage of the four days' worth of stuff for 20 cameras? I mean, the thing here only says 11 to 14. But how much are we allocating for that also? Like there's dollar signs that keep popping up that you're not thinking about the end part of it. You're just thinking about the $42,000 of this. I'll also go into what Tears money is supposed to be for, to reverse blight, encourage infill redevelopment, and preserve the character of our city. We are, most of us rural West Texans, that love our right to privacy. And I understand wanting to... Curb crime. You know, fear is not a good excuse to take away someone's rights to privacy, period. Once again, I will refer to Benjamin Franklin, those who will give up freedom for security deserve neither. And I will also argue that the hit and run, we all carry these things around with us everywhere. These are completely trackable, traceable. I mean, it takes a warrant or just geospatial tracking. I mean, you can ask Andy Marquis back there about geospatial tracking with advertising. She can help you all out on that. You know, we don't need to invest all this money in taking away, infringing on people's rights. Thank you.

Any additional public comment?

Jamal Shumpert, SMD3. I support the police as far as I can, but this I can't support. Just my personal experience where I believe they did an illegal search and seizure on me in the past, not up under Chief Griffin. There's different people now. But having experience with this, where my case had to be dismissed and I just took a lower charge. Yes, I am telling this because these people don't know what's to come. When they zoom in, they may be looking for people. But if you got some other substance or problem or issue in your car, they can pull you and get you. This goes well beyond that. I grew up in projects with these CCTVs. I know what is to come. Y'all think y'all are safe. Y'all will be bribed into making choices, driving the wrong place where they can zoom in and see what you got, and see what you're doing, or even see if you are infidelity. So I mean, be careful on approving this. I know it'll be within. Our network, but America ain't the best in cybersecurity. Our networks will be hacked all across the nation. Pretty soon it's going to happen because we're going to war. Or if we go to war. I shouldn't panic people. I don't want people to panic. But again. I've supported the police plenty of times up here. This where you can tilt and zoom, I don't support on a public utility easement access. I just don't support it. Now, if it was in your parks or at your police station, understandable. But people have to use these roads. They don't want you all in their cars. And it's illegal to look into their cars. I'm not sure how this has gotten out here. But where I was from, they kind of stopped it because of that illegal search and seizure. But thank you. Well, mainly because of the misuse. But thank you.

Thank you, Jamal. Any additional public comment, Heather?

Mayor, I'd like to clarify something if I could.

Absolutely.

So in your background information and also in the public's background information, there does show some financial information that is incorrect. It shows financial information for the comprehensive plan and not for the tiers item. This tiers item is only $42,000. The other information was when we did the comprehensive plan and COSA DC made a $50,000 assignment to that comprehensive plan, as did tiers. And then we had a grant from the general land office. And so that information is in the background of this. And so that's a mistake that I need to clean up. But I wanted to make sure you guys and the public know that that financial information is not correct. It's back in that background.

All right. Thank you, Aaron. Sure. Aaron, don't go far. I think Karen has a question.

Can you please clarify for the public the part of the tiers ordinances that indicates that the funding can be pulled from the tiers?

Yes, that is from the finance plan that is required for the development of a tiers district that was done in 2006 and was adopted by city council and the Taylor County Commissioner's Court at the same time. Then in 2012, it was brought forward again to the city council and was adopted again. And within that, there is a reinvestment zone financing plan that has 10 different areas that would be eligible for funding-type categories. One of those, which being number eight, is public safety, and specifically that paragraph that I wrote, or not wrote, but read. And that was... those folks that were putting together the tiers district. And so this has been an eligible item in years past. They did come forward as budgets are getting tighter and says this is a way to expand their force without adding higher costs of people and boots on the ground. And so we looked at this as this is a potential cost-saving items as well as an enhancement for our tiers district.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

I just wanted to clarify that the CCTVs, pan to zoom cameras, have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I just wanted to make that clear. I don't know where that's coming from, but right now they're recording and viewing the public. And I mentioned 20 cameras because Tears funded seven, and now we're looking at another 11 to 14.

We understand that, Greg. Thank you for your clarification. Any additional questions? So I have a first from Harry Thomas and a second from Tommy Hebert. All of those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Nay. Item passes 5-2. Move to item C, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Z26-08, a request for a zone change from the single-family residential, two-family residential, and zero-lot line twin home and townhome resident zoning districts to low-rise multifamily zoning district located at 331 East 31st Street between East 31st Street and Travis Street. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director Aaron Renoy. Aaron, you're on.

Thank you, Mayor. Again, Aaron Vannoy, Director of Planning Development Services. This is a rezoning for 331 East 31st Street. You can see it's a fairly large property here with our overhead image that's close to Travis and 30th Street. There's an early head start. It used to be an elementary school here on the eastern side of the property, and then Chadburn is further to the east. This is in the Lakeview neighborhood, Mr. Joe Self. The vision plan is neighborhood, and it's 2.669 acres. And the request from the zone change is there's different zone districts, and I'll show you in here. But one thing I want to clarify very quickly is I have confirmed that this is for RM1. not RM1L. They did apply before the RM1L, which is legacy, and that allowed multiple structure types. I have confirmed tonight through a text message with the applicant that they are requesting RM1, which is today's new zoning, which allows one structure type of low-rise multifamily. Now, they can have those connected or they could have them separated, but it is a low-rise multi, which means there's multiple structures on one piece of property. So I just wanted to clarify that for everyone very quickly. We did mail out our 23 notices. We had one in support and one in opposition. The one in opposition was in the background, and they felt like it was just not a good place for basically apartments, exactly what they had written, that it was a... The additional housing close to a school and so many young children so close would be the actual building itself could be brought on and not be able to be sold either. So we're not sure exactly what they're, but they thought it was maybe too much density is what it sounds like to us. So again, here's that mixed zoning currently there. There's been kind of a project on whole with this RS2. It's been speculated over the last eight to 10 years. It does have a sewer requirement that comes through the 30th. And so that it is in an infill area that has kind of slowed it down. But now with the rezoning that they can put in multiple structures on one lot. They don't have to add additional infrastructure because of the breaking up of the lots. They're able to do things there. They will still have some drainage responsibilities as the development process proceeds forward. And on the right, you can see that our vision plan is neighborhood. Here's just a couple of images of the site. This is basically the school is right over here to the left. There's kind of a drainage or alleyway. It's not a true alleyway, but you can see it on some as you drive by. Travis Street is down on this end, and this is 30th that you're standing on. This is at the corner of Travis, looking back 30th, and you can see the gymnasium of the school back there. Again, the property there just being a vacant property. You can see the street, good street, curb and gutter, nicely done there. This is 31st. Again, it shows that cul-de-sac down there at the end with the no outlet, curb and gutter, and a vacant lot. And then this is just looking at that lot from the cul-de-sac being vacant as well. We did go through our rationale looking at the subject property. Currently, there are two roads that service that area. They probably will have some private drives inside of that local area that, fortunately, we would not have to take maintenance over so that there is connection and circulation and appropriate fire coverage for our emergency services. We have demonstrated that there is a community need for this type of zoning and multifamily housing, both with our 2019 and our 2004 housing studies, and currently there will be no adverse effects to that natural environment. With that, this did go to the Planning Commission on June the 15th. They did recommend approval with a 4-0 vote. City staff also recommend approval to the zone change request for this property at 331 East 31st Street to go from RS1, RS2, RS3 to the RM1 zoning district. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Aaron, we all know we have a need for housing and an SMD2. We're always looking for something to make a little bit more attainable housing. Joe, I'm going to flip this one over to you. It's in the middle of your district.

If you can figure out that microphone over there, we'll just let you have it. We do still, I mean, there is a cul-de-sac on 31st, correct? That is correct. And we will have to, if they build that out inside there, have to have access for emergency.

Yes, sir, they will.

Okay. I grew up right down the road from here. My mom grew up here. I went to Day Elementary before it was a Head Start. That's been that way for 46 years that I've been alive. So it is good that we're developing that, and we need the housing. So while I don't say I want a bunch of housing in there, we need it, and that would be good development for that and good tax base.

Any other comments from the dice? Yes.

That'll look for a motion. So moved.

I have a first from Joe Self and a second from Tommy Heaver. Any public comment, Heather?

Rocky Templin.

Rocky Templin.

Good evening. Rocky Templin, single member district six. And so I went against this at planning because the planning commission and the planning department, actually the proponent asked for low-rise multifamily and they presented them with RM1L, legacy. And the planning commission actually voted 4-0, staff recommended approval and zone change of RS1, RS2, RS3, low multifamily, legacy. That's what passed it planning. And so all these documentations say RM1, but everything that was approved was RM1, legacy. So I want to make sure that all the documents are going to be signed in the for the future that you're going to sign are going to be RM1, which makes sense because we didn't want 28 STRs over there. I get it. Thank you.

Brandon, are we clear on that one? Legal's good?

Yeah, so when these things come up, if there's more restrictive zoning, which I think Aaron can confirm, which this is, then if you approve that, that's going to apply. And I think the other issue that's come up is vested rights, because they applied before the new law took into effect. They were entitled to that legacy, but I think Aaron... was saying that he's received in writing that they agree to come under the new regulations. So we're good from my standpoint.

That is correct. We did receive writing via text that they do want the RM1, not the RM1 legacy.

Right. No, we're just dotting I's and crossing T's here. Yes, sir. And Rocky brings up a good point. We want to make sure we approve what is appropriate and correct and when we go through planning for that. So we have any more additional questions? Public comment? Did you have a question?

I have a question.

Are there any legal implications to the fact that planning voted on a different zoning?

I mean, not sitting here today, not that I'm... I mean, obviously, if they had denied it and you were trying to overturn their denial, there's provisions that apply like a supermajority, but, I mean, not that I can think of, but...

Correct, and this is a more restrictive zoning, the RM1, that since we took those other structure types out, that they have to do certain things just within the RM1. So this actually gives... in my opinion, better of protections to the neighborhood so they know more concretely what's going to be there.

Erin, was the RML, the legacy, was that done in error at the very beginning? I mean, should it have just been not the legacy, but RM? I mean, was that legacy just thrown in there accidentally?

That's a good question, and I would say we had a pre-development meeting, and it was indicated by their representative that they would like the RM1L, so that is what we as staff recalled and remembered. but we've had those that have brought it up to us and said, no, it was really the RM1. And so we have asked that and gotten written confirmation that it is the RM1 that they have asked for. And so I take that as my responsibility to make sure that that's clear through my staff and with our applicant. And so that's an item that I will clear up to make sure that we're bringing forward the right information to this board, to this council.

Probably overkill, but I'd like to see a signed affidavit by all parties just for the file, just in case this ever comes up, something happened to you and everybody else in here, just to make sure that we did it right, if that's not asking too much.

Heather, will you document that pretty clearly in your clerk records? Thank you. Any additional questions for Erin? All right, I've got a first from Joe Self, a second from Tommy Hebert. Have we concluded all public comment?

Yes.

All right, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item C passes 7-0. Move to Item D, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance amending Chapter 12, Planning and Development Article 12.04, Signs Section 12.04.008, temporary signs by reinstating regulations for auction, estate, garage sale, political and real estate signs, and establishing regulations for feather flag banners. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director, Aaron Vannoy.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. Everyone's favorite topic is signs, right? We do this at council after dark. That's what we're calling tonight. So this is actually, for the most part, a cleanup. But I don't want to mislead you that it's all cleanup. There are a couple of new tweaks that have been asked through the Planning Commission to add to this. So what we want to do is restore lost language for certain temporary signs. That is a category within our sign ordinance, our temporary signs. Well, whatever the reasons were, auction estate and garage sale sign section was taken out, political sign section was taken out, and real estate signs was taken out. And what that has caused for our code enforcement officers is lots of complaints about signs on whether they are a temporary sign, a permanent sign, how to go and enforce certain things. And since we don't have really these definition and language within our sign ordinance, they're pretty handcuffed. And so... We talked to numerous groups, particularly the real estate agencies and the real estate group about some of these things, and they had some discussion with us. And then the last thing is established regulations for feather and banner flag style signs. This is a style of sign that we have seen, I would say, in the last two years heavily in our community. Today, without any ordinance, we would say those are freestanding signs and are probably illegal based on the volume and number that are in front of businesses. One could argue that within our sign regulation, it talks about air-activated signs. I think some people are splitters of air-activated signs. It's got to be mechanically activated, not wind-activated. We said, let's just find a way to make banner and feather flag style allowable as a temporary sign for those businesses that want to use them as temporary signs but not go overboard. And that's the real question here is what level is overboard for a business? And so we'll go through that. So this is the actual language that we're putting back for auction estate and garage sale signs is the exact language that came out and this is exact language that's going back in. It seemed to have worked before. Do we have sometimes a plethora of garage sale signs and estate sale signs around town? It's very possible. Is it easy to enforce those? Not easily enforceable. Usually weekend time Sometimes they hang around until Monday or Tuesday, but usually by the time you do a 30-day enforcement, they're gone. And so this gives our team, our city team, an option to say, all right, do we need to enforce that? Do we just need to go by and knock on the door and say, hey, make sure your group goes and pick your signups. Okay, good deal. Again, the exact language talks about how long they should be there, those types of things, how they should be affixed, exact language that we had removed. The next section are political signs. Again, not something that is really a big deal until they start encroaching on places that you wouldn't expect them to, like the right-of-way, city-owned property, county-owned property, places that you shouldn't have political signs anywhere. And without having some definitions, it's really hard to say, hey, get that out of here. Just move it to wherever the private property is. Again, it follows the state law on when certain political signs and how long they can be out, and so we kept that same language that we had before. Again, it gives responsibility, ownership back to the candidate or the person owning, controlling the lot to please be responsible, which I think we all here would say we all want each person to be responsible for their own property, and that's what we're asking. Real estate signs, this first section, all of this is what we are putting back in. This is equal to what we took out, the exact words. So A and B, and talking about four offsite directional signs, basically saying if you've got an open house, this is the way it is. Come down this block, whatever it may be. Same thing, let's see, that looks like a duplication. How about that? Okay. I see that there's a duplication in my slides right here. So A and B was duplicated twice. So here we go to, come on now. I went back the wrong way. I'm with you, Mary. I think someone's playing tricks on us back there. So in real estate signs, we've always had this pendant, feathers, or banners maybe used at an open house on Saturday and Sunday. So these are all still correct. And it talks about the no larger than 60 square feet or 25% of the area of the wall, things like that. What was requested by Planning Commission was properties that are waterfront properties, Lake Nasworthy or Concho River properties, that they have a practice, it happens now, we don't have it in our ordinance, that allows real estate signs or banners to go on the lakeside frontage. Many cities actually see the lakeside frontage as the front yard and the back that where the road is the actual backyard as opposed to a traditional yard. So we thought that was reasonable. We asked for some sizes and they talked about adding signs or banners up to 32 square feet allowed for continuous display and must be removed 30 days after the sale of the property. So we thought that was reasonable for the real estate signs. Now this section is completely new. Feather flag banners, and I've got a couple of pictures to remind you of what those look like. That's these types of things that we see. They are designed to be a temporary sign. They're not a long-term permanent sign. And so that's why we think they fit in temporary signs. We understand their purpose and their reason. They're trying to draw traffic to a property. It could be a grand opening. It could be a special service. It could be whatever it may be. what happens that we see in our community is that they end up being permanent signs and stay there way too long and become torn and we could try to enforce it under well you shouldn't have that sign at all but i bet we could drive around within a half a mile of here, and we would count probably a hundred of those on properties, you know, total. And so for us to have our enforcement group go and just do that, that's going to be very taxing on them and not make a lot of friends out there in the community. So we have come forward with These suggestions to our planning commission, they like them. They added, we asked for four per property. They said, how about six per property? No larger than 60 square feet for each individual flag unit. And that's a six by 10. That's a big thing. must be back 10 feet set back from the property lines, which is standard for any sign. If the property is in a design district, being the river corridor, the downtown, the cultural district, or historic, signs must gain approval through the zoning ordinance 211 or 212, which is standard. Then no sign shall be attached, placed, affixed, or staked in the public right-of-way whether in the ground or on the ground or on a pole or structure. That can be very unsafe as you get closer to the road edge with that type of sign. It can be very distracting and it can cause some issues. So we also put that they would be allowed for 30 days or less and only four times a year. And I think that is part of the question is, is that a right time frame or not? So whether that's four months consecutively, every other month, every two months, what is that? I will say that is a challenge for our enforcement group to, all right, when did the clock start and when did it stop? At the same time, we all recognize from the enforcement group to the ones that try to work on what does our community look like, understand if we put nothing, nothing is enforced. And so that's kind of the question that we have today. So with that, Mayor, I've got a couple of pictures of just the banner signs again. Again, we understand that it can enhance a business, and if you've got a special going on or you've got a grand opening or you've got something, we understand that. We get that. You've got a special event coming up. You know, San Angelo has great special things, and we want people to go to our small local businesses, and this may be a way to do it. With that, this did go to the Planning Commission in June. They did recommend approval with a 4-0 vote to restore the temporary signs for estates, garage, sale, auctions, as well as political signs and real estate signs and adopt the new temporary sign regulations for feather and banner flag style signs. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can.

Secretary, historically, this one has got a lot of noise around it, good, bad, indifferent. We see these all the time, and it's when you point out to people and say that's actually illegal, you shouldn't have it up. But you look at it and go, for special occasions, it's certainly appropriate. So I'm glad to see you put some leniency in here. I'll go to council and we'll go bouncing around the dice a little bit about four times per year. The square footage, if you went back to six per property, you had the right slide there. Go back, Harry.

Sorry, sir.

That one, if planning didn't have an issue with it, I understand that. But at this point, Harry, I'm going to kick it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. I think it's going to be a challenge for code, but I like that we've actually put this down so that they've got a way to go. The unfortunate thing, if you went back and looked at those pictures of those feather signs, they're all in District 3. There wasn't a sign sheet below it, all right? There wasn't a sign sheet below it, Harry.

They were on the way home, Harry. Sorry.

But anyway, I will say thank you for tackling this, bringing it back, making it... clear than it was. Again, I do think that code is going to have a little bit of problem on some of these because these people take these down at sunset and put them back up sunrise every day. I mean, they're there every day. So, thank you. Questions down here?

There we go. On... Let's see here. On real estate sign C, it says locate 10 feet from any curb line or zero feet from the private line. Is that correct verbiage?

I believe it is, yes. Okay. So... In residential, usually property owners don't even know where their property line is, and usually we're on a local street that has a five-foot right-of-way, and so if we can get them to be about ten feet back, even five feet back, they know that they're at their property line. That really works better. Now, I understand line of sight. If you're at one corner looking down, you might not be able to see as easily. I will say... There's probably lots and lots of real estate signs that encroach into the right-of-way all over town. In fact, we actually have an allowance in our downtown because our buildings are right up to the property line that they actually can be in the right-of-way for real estate signs there. But usually in our... Our other areas where traffic should be going slower, where you're not necessarily looking for a business within a multiple businesses, you're looking for a house for sale within amongst a group of houses, having that setback is a little more appropriate. We believe so. And that's what we've had. We didn't change that. That's been there for some time.

And then for the flag banners on C as well, the design districts, Do they have to pay any application fees for any of that, or do they just have to abide by that, or do they just have to get approved? What's the process for that?

They usually would have an application fee. We would probably do something, if it's a banner like this, that it would be approved for the year, and even if it lasted longer, it's really an approval one time. Is that appropriate for that location? And usually for a sign, we're not looking necessarily of content at all. We're looking at... is this a historic building do the colors work with the historic building and where's the location that's all we're asking we're not asking for what's the content what does it say is it diagonal anything like that we're it's within those districts that have always said we need to look at signage and so we put something in here usually those are administrative and can be done within three to five days because they're small enough they're not big enough that have to go to the board Occasionally there might be one that is big enough that has to go to the board, but we would recommend that they be administrative so that those property owners, if they're running up against a timeline and, hey, we've got an event on Friday and it's Monday, we want to get that turned around so they can get it out there and let people know that they have an event coming.

And then on, say, the feathered flag banners, how do signs pertain to food trucks? So like a food truck sets up, what signs can they have out there?

So since food trucks are not a structure, they don't fall under a building code that oversees how signs are made and constructed and adhered to things. Once they go and start putting signs in, say, the right of way, the street, the sidewalk, then they may be in violation. Say they put a menu board out. We haven't had a lot of complaints about that. I know it happens. I go to food trucks. I see them. Usually that's not an issue. If it's on a private piece of property and at an event, that's usually allowed. We don't have any provisions against it. We don't have any provisions that say you could do it. I would say signs for food trucks is very tricky. Now, if you've got a permanent sign for a food truck on a corner, that's different. We see food trucks as being mobile units, and with the new state law that says they have to move every day, they've become more mobile units than ever before.

Do you think six per property is too many?

I'm going to answer with my planner hat and say that is the most I would like to see in a property. If it was my personal opinion, I'm not a huge fan of signs. So signs don't attract me to a place, but that's me personally. But I do understand their purpose. And so we want to make sure that we're being reasonable. Six signs, you know, there's some businesses that may not be enough. I get that. What's the remedy to that? It's hard to say, okay, well, let's allow 12 signs, and then a small property can have 12 signs, and then that's way too much. It is very difficult to regulate something in there that's not easily enforceable, that our code enforcement can't go out and quickly make a decision saying, yes, no, let's move on, no, there's not a violation. So I'm happy and open to any suggestions you guys have if we think there needs to be a breakdown there somewhere.

I know it's always talked about, and I miss most of the air activated, but I'm of the light that the feather flag banners are not air activated in my opinion. I think six is too many, but I also don't have a problem with them. I would personally be fine with them because signs are expensive. So if a local business can put one of those up to say what they have going on or change it with their different menu or whatever, I think that's a way to help them out that – If it's out of the easement, out of line of sight, you know, as far as streets and stuff like that, I have no problem with them. So personally, I have no issues with them even having them year-round just because signs are expensive, real signs. Yes. But six seems like a lot to me. That's all I've got to say on it.

Karen? Any additional comments? Nope. Start down there on the left side. Tommy?

Aaron, I trust this is ordinance that if something was to become problematic for you all from an enforcement standpoint or to Patrick's point, maybe six in the complaints start arising, that's just over the top, that You could bring this back in an amended form, but my real question is, I assume that would be two readings simply because this is in an ordinance, or is that not correct?

That is absolutely correct. It is an ordinance, so it does take two readings. And yes, staff always continually evaluates, is this ordinance working or not? Are we having problems because the way the ordinance is worded? whether it's a number, language, to bring back and say we really need to help our citizens and our team be able to make this more clear. So we could bring that back if something in the future looks like this is just not working. We would bring that back.

Well, hence, we're looking at this tonight because there were some issues. Yes, sir. Okay. This is not in perpetuity.

No, not that I'm aware of. Okay, thanks.

Joe? Just to kind of piggyback off what Patrick said, six signs per property, but like one of your photos was a shopping center. So does that go by business or property? Is that considered one property or six different properties? That's a great question.

Currently, the way we've written it, it is per property because that is easier to control of a property boundary than a business boundary that's a strip center for some reason.

Because like the strip center, I could see six signs because you have six businesses. Right. versus a single business. So I'm just curious as to whether that's clarified or not.

And each of those businesses still has the option of wall signs, freestanding signs, a portable sign, or even a mobile sign. So there's lots of options for signs.

Any additional comments down here? Down there? All right. We'll look for a motion. So moved. I have a first from Harry Thomas. Second, I get a second from Joseph. Heather, any public comment?

Larry Larry Soha, single member District 6. My concern on those signs is just when will the, if the ordinance passes, where will we be able to find that specifics? Where will I find that signed ordinance? It'll just be online so I can find it there and find out exactly how many. And then I have to, I would have to look for all the different river corridor signs and whatever other district to be sure if I'm in those districts to put my sign up.

Unfortunately, there will be an overlay, and you'll have to make sure how you fall into that overlay, but there's a map of that overlay on the website.

Okay. Well, that's what I needed to find out.

Thank you. I'll just add that there is a little bit of a delay from when it's updated online, but the city clerk's office always has the most up-to-date ordinance at any time, so...

So right now, it hasn't been passed. Y'all are going to discuss it more and then come back again?

It will get a second reading after this one. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Any additional public comment?

Rocky Templin.

Rocky.

I'm not code enforcement, so I am a little confused. So my feather flag banner that's on the property line of my residential house that says model home and open house gets a complaint, and code enforcement comes out there and says, well, no, your feather flag banner has to be 10 feet from the property line. It can only be there on Saturday and Sunday. So... I like this. We tried to eat this elephant once before, and every time I called code enforcement and there was a 4x8 vote for me in a residential yard, code enforcement says, well, we don't enforce that. You've got to call the police department. And so when I do get a complaint, I want to make sure that code enforcement can understand the ordinance if I can't understand the ordinance.

Fair enough. That's all.

Aaron, I think you'll take due notes on that one. I tend to agree if you can't explain it, sometimes we don't understand it. But with that, we'll try to make this as clear as we can. All right, we have a first from Harry Thomas and a second from Joe Self. Public comment is complete. Let's take a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item D passes 7-0. Move to item E, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance amending chapter 12, planning and development exhibit A, zoning ordinance to add newly adopted residential zoning designations as follows. One, amending article three, use regulation section 301, establishment of districts. Item two, amending article four, specific use standards section 406, bed and breakfast establishments and short-term rentals. Item three, amending article four, specific use standards section 407, Campground RV parks. Item 4, amending Article 4, specific use standards, Section 415, intermodal containers. Item 5, amending Article 4, specific use standards, Section 421, recovery facility, alcohol and drug. And Item 6, amending Article 4, specific use standards, Section 424, self-service storage. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director, Aaron Vannoye.

Thank you, Mayor. This is the part two to our residential district items. As you guys know, y'all adopted a new residential district of RS4, 5, and 6, and we wanted to go through the zoning ordinance and make sure that all RS districts, whether you're RS1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, follow the same rules when it comes to all of those other things, and RM1 follows RM1 and RM2. And so our staff went through, looked at those different items, and said, all right, we need to make sure that these lots that have not yet been zoned, nobody's come in and actually received the zoning for RS4, 5, or 6, but they are going to act like RS districts. So as it pertains to... to campgrounds and intermodal containers and all of those things that the Mayor just read into the record, which was a lot, so thank you, Mayor. We want to make sure that our neighborhoods are acting like our neighborhoods, how y'all intended the RS districts to act. So within our zoning ordinance, this talks about the establishment of the district. So we went in and made sure that we established those districts within this section, Section 301. And so you can see the additions there of 4, 5, and 6. In Section 406, which is our bed and breakfast, but most commonly known as our short-term rentals, we wanted to make sure that those RS districts that were added are acting just like RS1, RS2, and RS3, so that they're added in the language that those must come in and get a conditional use. They can't be within 500 feet of a school and can't be within 500 feet of another short-term rental. Campgrounds and RV parks. We didn't think that was appropriate for those to be in those districts of four or five and six. So we made sure that we added those into the language. We made sure that we kept the RM1 in there as well as the RM1, 1L and RM1. Intermodal containers, obviously this talks about a permanent intermodal container as a storage unit at a residence. We did not think that that was appropriate either for the RS-4, 5, or 6 since those essentially are single-family districts. Those allow single-family homes, so we added those designations there. And then recovery facility alcohol and drug facilities, we also added those designations there. And you'll notice that the RM districts have not ever been in that and we did not add that to the recovery facility alcohol and drugs. Self-storage, same thing here. Self-storage in those districts, while they may be adjacent to those districts and maybe a neighborhood commercial, they should avoid being in those residential districts. And with that, this did go to Planning Commission again on June the 15th with a recommendation of four to zero in approval. City staff does recommend approving this so that our ordinance aligns with the intent of what an RS district is and how it meets any of the other items within our zoning ordinance. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Aaron, in the case, let's go back to where you talked about the C containers. Right there. Right there. During the flood, we stacked these things everywhere to help people out. And we, I won't say we looked the other way. We said, okay, we understand that. We go, to this day, there's still a lot of these sitting out there. You know, I understand Ranch and Estate has some exemptions to it, but other ones there, so... There comes a point in time we have to clean these up. How many of them are grandfathered in or can they be? Because we see a lot of these. It's a hot topic on a part of town. There are several out there and I know some of them have not been picked up. I have gotten calls from constituents that said they brought this thing out a year ago and it's still here. When does it leave? And so those are my questions. Does this deal with any of that?

This does not really deal with any of that. And I may lean on Brandon here in just a moment to answer some of that. I would say that per zoning ordinance, those were always prohibitive and probably should have been prohibitive or at least had a discussion to say, how do we go through a process to allow them during a disaster timeframe? And I'll kind of turn to Brandon to say, well, that's not associated initially with this, but intermodal containers may be part of the disaster discussion. Yeah.

Yeah, so my recall on that was that was limited to a specific property, not overall the whole city.

Well, and we saw them in a floodway, in a floodplain. I mean, that's where it was used.

Yeah, I mean, we'll have to go back and look at the order that allowed that, essentially giving a variance to the zoning ordinance. I think the order was pretty much just looked the other way. Well, I remember we did an actual order on one of those, so I can look back at that and see what the expiration was.

And we can look at something of what might be a solution for those that are still remaining and may bring that forward in the next few weeks or months to see if there's something that we need to act on as a council.

And I'm mainly talking about those ones that were put in and have just left there. And, I mean, they've had a year. I know the houses have been remodeled on the two occasions and the ones I see. I just think somebody might need to revisit that.

And it could be just as simple as us going, knocking on a door and asking, hey, what's going on here? When do you plan on moving it and getting some information? But we'll research it and we'll bring something back if we need to.

We're good. Okay. Questions from the dais?

None?

All right. With that, I'll look for a motion. I've got a motion first from Karen. I have a second from Tommy Hebert. Any public comment, Heather?

I believe he left.

Who was it? Let's call her name.

Jamal Schumper.

Jamal is gone. Any additional public comment? No. With no additional appointment, I have a first from Karen, a second from Tommy Hebert. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passed is 7-0. We'll move at 7-18. We'll move into closed session. Executive session under the provision of Government Code Title V, Open Government Ethics, Subtitle A, Open Government Chapter 551. Open meeting subchapter D, exceptions to requirements that meetings be open under the following sections. A, section 551-072, deliberations about real property regarding 3002 Old Ballinger Highway. Item B, section 551-072, deliberations about real property regarding 70 East 43rd Street. Item C, section 551-071, consultation with attorney regarding the possible chapter 380 agreement with Technology Towers, LLC. Item D, Section 551-071, consultation with attorney regarding Texas Local Government Code Chapter 380 and Texas Tax Code Chapter 312. We'll move in the closed session. We're going to call this meeting back to order from executive session. Consider items discussed in executive session if needed. We have no further discussion. Correct? Legal. Announcements and considerations of future agenda items. I have one, but let's check and see if anybody else has anything they want to add from either side. Good. I think I want to request that we have a presentation or discussion from staff or somebody from the selection of staff to discuss what a 380 and a 381 agreement and what these items actually do. That's one. I have a second thing that I want to bring up with or bring up and discuss for staff to attach to any discussions we have with any future data center groups. This would be an addition or exterior to a 380. It's called a community benefit framework. It's a community benefit framework. action, and it's a voluntary investment to accompany any future hyperscale data center development. This supplements any chapter 380 agreements to create long-term commitments to COSA citizens. First is long-term financial stability. Maintain an annual tax or pilot at or no less than prior year, review valuations biannually, supplement review for depreciation municipal receipts. Community investment fund, annual contributions for health and human services, parks, riverbanks, housing infill, Lake Nasworthy, and airport operations indexed periodically for inflation. Workforce development, paid internships, technician apprenticeships, and partnerships with Angelo State University, Howard College, and other institutions. Item four, technology infrastructure. Support local cloud hosting, secure municipal data storage where feasible, and community AI data innovation center. Item five, environmental stewardship. Fund conservation, river restoration, water efficiency, and publish annual sustainability metrics. Number six, an airport partnership. Support ATC staffing, emergency coordination, and aviation technology initiatives. Number seven, parks and recreation. Park improvement, investment plus annual green space and trail improvements. Number eight, housing. Annual investment in workforce housing and neighborhood revitalization. Number nine, local nonprofit investment. Rotating annual grants to nonprofits serving youth, veterans, health, education, seniors, and public safety. Number 10, community advisory council. Semi-annual meetings with company leadership, engineers, city representatives, educational partners, and neighborhood stakeholders. Number 11, local purchasing commitment. Good faith effort to utilize local contractors, suppliers, restaurants, hotels, and professional services with annual reporting. Number 12, emergency services support. Annual support for specialized response equipment, training, and emergency communications. Number 13, education and STEM. Support K through 12 STEM, AI education, robotic scholarships, and teacher grants. Last item, community improvement grant program. Competitive grants for parks, playgrounds, public art, beautification, historic preservation, and trails. I think these are 14 items. that I would like in a community benefit proposal provided to anybody that wants to discuss this. These are exterior to a 380. Nothing here is final, but I think these are things that the citizens know is important to all of us at the dais, and we will not move forward without addressing some of these initiatives to improve the situation we have now. Any additional items? With that, I'll look for a motion to close. I have a first from Tommy Hebert and a second from Harry Thomas. Any objections?