6. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on Approving Multiple Contracts with Accurate Air Solutions LLC, Cary Services Inc., and Daikin Applied Americas, Inc. for HVAC Services (Lesli Andrews)

[6. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on Approving Multiple Contracts with Accurate Air Solutions LLC, Cary Services Inc., and Daikin Applied Americas, Inc. for HVAC Services (Lesli Andrews)]

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM SIX. YOU HAD QUESTIONS?

>> YES, THANK YOU. COULD YOU OUTLINE WHAT WE ARE DOING ON

NUMBERS SIX? DEALING WITH HVAC. >> ITEM SIX IS A CONTRACT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO IF WE NEED TO, ONE OF OUR HVAC UNITS GO OUT THAT WE COULD CALL SOMEONE TO DO THAT AND WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF CAPABLE OR NUMBER OF STAFF TO BE CONSTANTLY HAVING THOSE. THE MEETING WHEN WE APPROVED THE CONTRACT , SOME OF THOSE UNITS WILL BE REPLACED WHEN WE GET THAT DONE, BUT THIS IS TO KEEP US GOING DURING THE SUMMER, 105 IF THE UNIT GOES OUT AND WE COULD HAVE SOMEONE COME IMMEDIATELY, TOO. WE ONLY PAY IF WE USE IT AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY FEES OR ANYTHING TO

THESE COMPANIES. >> THIS IS WITH THREE SEPARATE COMPANIES . EACH CONTRACT IS FOR 300,000 OR COMBINED ALL THREE

FOR 300,000. >> EACH WOULD BE 300,000 AND WE DON'T KNOW WHICH UNITS WOULD HAVE TO CALL FROM WHICH ONES, SO IT WOULD BE -- EACH ONE WOULD BE UP TO 300,000.

>> IN TOTAL, THIS RESOLUTION WOULD BE FOR 900,000?

>> INCORRECT -- CORRECT. WE HAVE A CATASTROPHE THAT ONE DOES GO UP TO A LARGER AMOUNT THAT WE COULD USE.

>> FROM A BUDGETING PERSPECTIVE, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S SPEND AS NEEDED AS THEY APPLY OR SUBMIT BILLS, BUT ARE WE BEING ASKED TO SET ASIDE 900,000 IN THE BUDGET AND IT STAYS IN THE GENERAL FUND, BUT IT'S NOW DESIGNATED FOR THIS? WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE?

>> ONLY IF WE USE IT. IF WE HAD TO USE ONE OF THESE, IT WOULD BE TAKEN OUT, BUT OTHERWISE IT WOULD NOT. YES, IT WOULD STAY IN

THE GENERAL FUND. >> HOW HAS THIS BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY LAST CALENDAR FULL YEAR. HOW MUCH DO WE END UP

SPENDING ON THESE SERVICES? >> I WILL ASK LESLIE TO COME AND TALK ABOUT THE AMOUNTS WE HAVE SPENT ON THAT.

>> DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION. GOOD MORNING. I DID BRING THE EXACT AMOUNTS WITH ME, BUT WE SPEND AN AVERAGE -- TO

$400,000 ANNUALLY ON CONTRACTS. >> THIS WOULD BE 900,000 -- MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT WE NORMALLY SPEND. IS THAT FAIR?

>> THAT IS FAIR IN THE SENSE OF , WE DID EACH OF THESE FOR 300,000, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GO OUT, BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT UNITS BETWEEN THE BOILERS AND INDIVIDUAL UNITS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ALL APPROVED A CONTRACT FOR $126,000 LAST YEAR AND WE NEVER KNOW WHAT THE EXACT AMOUNT WILL BE , SO WE JUST DID THAT FOR NOT TO EXCEED . IF WE NEED TO CALL SOMEBODY OUT , THEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY , OTHERWISE WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS BID IT OUT, THEN WE HAVE TO DESIGN IT, BID IT OUT AND GET THEM IN, THEN WE HAVE TO GET ON A COUNCIL AGENDA AND WHAT WHEN SOMEONE IS OUT OF AIR CONDITIONING, A THREE TO ONE MONTH PROCESS COULD BE A LONG

TIME WITHOUT AIR CONDITIONING. >> GO AHEAD.

>> LAST YEAR, WE SPENT 411,500 NINE DOLLARS .

>> IF WE APPROVE THIS , AS THEY COME UP AND THEY NEED 126,000, THAT WOULDN'T COME IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL ANYMORE , BUT IT WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY PAID OUT THROUGH THE FUNDS?

>> CORRECT. >> SETTING ASIDE $1 MILLION THAT WE WON'T HAVE. I WANT SAY WE WON'T HAVE SAY, BUT WE ARE DELEGATING THAT OUT. YOU DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.

[00:20:04]

>> THAT IS FAIR. THE ONLY ONE CAVEAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT SOME OF THIS IS GENERAL FUND AND SOME IS ENTERPRISE. SOME OF THIS -- DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BUILDING IS , IT MAY COME FROM THE FUND ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BUILDING. IT IS NOT $900,000 FROM THE FACILITIES DIVISION GENERAL FUND . ON THESE CONTRACTS, ARE WE LOOKING IN BETTER THAN MARKET RATES OR IS THERE A MONETARY ADVANTAGE FOR US? ARE THE CONTRACTORS MARKING HIGHER AND

WE HAVE TO PAY THAT PRICE? >> WE ARE LOCKING IN FAIRLY GOOD RATES. THEY ARE FAVORABLE FOR THIS YEAR , BUT WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RENEW THESE. THIS IS A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT, BUT WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RENEW THIS FOR UP TO FOUR MORE YEARS AND WE ARE LOCKING IN THE NUMBERS THIS YEAR, SO FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WE WOULD STILL BE PAYING THE NUMBERS FOR THIS YEAR. WHILE ITS MARKET VALUE FOR THIS YEAR, IT'S AN ADVANTAGE TO US AS WE

GO INTO THE FUTURE. >> SHANE, DID YOU HAVE

QUESTIONS? >> I MET WITH THEM YESTERDAY

AFTERNOON AND GOT THE NUMBERS. >> IT'S 900,000, BUT IT'S 300,000 PER COMPANY. ONE COMPANY MAY HAVE 200,000, BECAUSE THEY SPECIALIZE IN THE BRAND, BUT ONE MAY HAVE 60,000, SO WE COULD GET TO THE REPAIRS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THREE 300,000 NOT TO

EXCEED CONTRACTS. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I GUESS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET AT IS WAY IT WAS DETERMINED AND WHY NOT INSTEAD 411,000 LAST YEAR . WHY NOT SAY 150 PER CONTRACT? WHITE THERE HUNDRED THOUSAND FOR EACH CONTRACT? $1 MILLION IS A HUGE SUM OF MONEY AFTER WE APPROVED NEW HVAC SETTLE GO IN OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND THIS IS A FIVE-YEAR POTENTIAL TERM . WHY THE 300,000?

>> WE HAD ONE BUSINESS UNDER CONTRACT FOR 300,000 PRIOR TO THIS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. ONE BUSINESS -- IN ALL HONESTY, IT WAS TOO MUCH WORK. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SPREAD IT OUT AND IT WAS 200,000 ON THAT ONE. WE COULD PULL 150,000 . WE JUST PICKED THAT NUMBER BECAUSE ON AVERAGE WE SPEND ABOUT 300,000 TO 400,000 AND IT WAS MORE TO GIVE LEX ABILITY NOT KNOWING WHAT PARTS WERE GOING TO GO OUT AND NO EXPENSIVE ONE UNIT COULD BE.

>> HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR BUDGET MOVING FORWARD OR SITTING ASIDE $900 MILLION OUTSIDE OF THE HVAC SITUATION? HOW IS THIS

AFFECTING OUR BUDGET? >> IT IS ALREADY INCLUDED, SO THE NUMBERS ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THAT .

>> FOR THE 411? >> FOR THE FULL --.

>> LITERALLY SET ASIDE AND WE ARE HERE CREATING A SPECIAL FUND DESIGNATION AND SIGNING CONTRACTS.

>> YOU ARE AUTHORIZING US TO BE ABLE TO CALL IMMEDIATELY FOR SOMEBODY TO COME WITHOUT HAVING TO BEAT IT OUT AND CONDUCT A COUNSEL FOR THE TWO WEEKS, SO THAT WE COULD IMMEDIATELY HAVE SOMEONE COME OUT TO REPAIR THAT. THIS IS ONLY IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR STAFF CAN'T TAKE CARE OF.

>> A LOT OF COMPANIES HAVE CONTINGENCY CONTRACTS, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS. WE HAVE SET ASIDE 900,000 . THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE WILL SPEND 900,000. THAT IS ALL WE ARE GOING TO SPEND. THE REST OF THE MONEY THAT WAS EARMARKED OR ON THE CONTINGENCY WILL COME

BACK TO WHERE IT IS. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IF THE AIRPORT IS HE GOES OUT OR WHATEVER GOES OUT YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT A MONTH. I DON'T LIKE TO WAIT 20 MINUTES. I THINK

IT'S A GOOD PLAN. >> THE BACKGROUND INTELLECT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU ARE TAKING ABOUT THE COST PREDICTABILITY , BUT MORE SO THE RAPID RESPONSE. I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO NOTE ONE THOUGHT THAT I HAD OR A QUESTION THAT I HAD WHEN I THOUGHT OF IT WAS WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, WHAT IS THE METRIC THAT YOU TEND TO LEAN INTO THAT MAKES YOU SELECT A VENDOR TO SAY THAT IT'S THE PERFECT VENDOR OR BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH VARYING DIFFERENT NEEDED OPTIONS FOR THAT , HOW

[00:25:01]

DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK? >> WE DID GO THROUGH A PROCESS THAT HAS MULTIPLE QUESTIONS THAT THEY WERE SCORED ON , BUT WE WERE LOOKING AT A MAJORITY OF THE VARIETY OF UNITS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE TO MAINTAIN AND DO THE COMPANIES HAVE THE ABILITY AND EXPERTISE TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE? WE DID HAVE ONE COMPANY THAT DID SUBMIT , BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE UNITS. WE DID NOT RECOMMEND GOING INTO A CONTRACT.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION AND I KNOW TRAVIS IS KEEPING COUNT, SO I WILL KEEP IT TO ONE. AFTER ALL OF THE NEW HVAC SCHOOL IN OVER THE NEXT 18 MONTHS OR SO AND INSTEAD OF 411,000 THAT WE ARE SPENDING ANNUALLY, WE ARE SPENDING ONLY 100,000, BECAUSE IT'S ALL NEW UNITS. INSTEAD OF US TYING UP 900,000 IN THIS FUND , WE ARE ONLY NOW SPENDING 100,000 ANNUALLY, CAN WE IN TWO YEARS COME BACK TO THIS AND CHANGE THAT , SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE IT LOCKED UP OR ARE WE LOCKED IN FOR THE NEXT FIVE

YEARS? >> WE CAN GET OUT ANYTIME THAT

WE WANT TO WITH A 30 DAY NOTICE. >> WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO SAY ONLY 20,000 AND TO BACK IT UP AND PUT IT ELSEWHERE. .

>> WE HAVE FOUR OPTIONS TO EXECUTE. FOUR ONE-YEAR OPTIONS.

>> WE WOULD TAKE IT YEAR BY YEAR AND IT WOULD TAKE US -- ONCE IT BEGINS, IT TAKES 18 MONTHS AND THIS WILL TAKE US THROUGH THE NEXT TWO YEARS, THEN ONCE THOSE UNITS ARE REPLACED, WE WILL DEFINITELY RE-EVALUATE ON THE AUCTION.

>> WHAT THE RENEWAL COME BACK TO US OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT

STAFF IS ABLE TO DECIDE? >> IT WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL

. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE OR AGAINST ITEMS SIX. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION , IF NOT I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE AND SECOND BY TRYING TURNPIKE.

[12. Ordinance (First Reading) TC-2025-01: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action a Request from the Adjacent Owner, to Abandon Certain Portions of Hickory Street and North 21st Street. Located at the 1300 to 1400 Blocks of North 21st Street and Hickory Street Extending 420 Feet South of the Intersection of North 21st Street and Hickory Street Abilene, Taylor County, Texas (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 12.

PRICE, YOU PULLED UP THIS. >> THIS ONE IS REQUEST TO ABANDON A COUPLE OF STREETS AND THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING, BUT I WANTED TO EXPRESS CONCERNS I HAD IN CASE THERE IS DISCUSSION OR THE PROPONENT WANTS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE. I DON'T KNOW IF -- THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE. YOU CAN IF YOU WANT.

>> HAVE A SEAT. >> THERE WERE QUESTIONS I HAD AND AS I READ THROUGH THE PACKET, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT I DON'T SEE THE ANSWERS TO. FOR ME PERSONALLY, IN THE 1990S, I LIVED ON THE SOUTHPARK TOWN NEAR JEFFERSON AND MY GRANDPARENTS HAD A FAILING HEALTH AND I WOULD GET CALLS AT LIKE 2:00 IN THE MORNING THAT ONE OF THEM HAD GONE TO THE HOSPITAL AND I WOULD GO TO BUTTERNUT OF HICKORY AND THE CITY NOTICED THE IMPORTANCE OF HICKORY STREET, BECAUSE THE LIGHTS ARE BLINKING YELLOW. ONCE THEY WERE AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND IF THEY WERE THERE FOR A FEW DAYS, A LOT OF TIMES THEY WERE IN THE SHELTER BUILDING NORTH OF THAT BETWEEN THE EMERGENCY ROOM , SO I WOULD GO UP HICKORY AND GO HOME FROM WORK AND HAVE DINNER WITH FAMILY, THEN GO UP THERE AND VISIT MY GRANDPARENTS.

FOR PEOPLE COMING FROM THE SOUTH CENTRAL PART OF TOWN TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THIS CLOSED STREET. IT'S A COUPLE MORE BLOCKS AND YOU ARE AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE , SO THE SOUTH 21ST STREET CLOSURE I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. EXTENDING EXPANDING THE PARKING LOT AND WHATEVER THEY ARE GOING TO DO IS PERFECT. THEY NEED MORE PARKING AND THAT IS VERY GOOD USE AND I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR CONCERNS TO THAT PRIOR TO THE HICKORY CLOSURE, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING MYSELF ABOUT VOTING YES FOR THAT. ANY RESPONSES THE SECOND , THEN THEY CAN PROVIDE THOSE AND ADDRESS CONCERNS.

>> I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AND I WENT UP THIS WEEK AND DROVE IT AGAIN. IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT STREET. I HAD TO CAUSE A SAFETY ISSUE AT OUR HOSPITAL . I AM WITH YOU . ON 21ST, I CAN

[00:30:06]

OBVIOUSLY SEE THAT WORKING. HICKORY IS AN EXTREMELY USED STREET AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE IN EMERGENCIES OR DISTRESS TRYING TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL, I JUST DON'T SEE IT BEING SAFE IN THAT

AREA. >> I AGREE . 21ST IS OKAY. I THINK IT'S A SIDE STREET AND BETWEEN AN EXISTING PARKING LOT AND PROPOSED ONE. THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT THE CLOSE CLOSING HICKORY STREET, I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH THAT. I AM PRO ROUNDABOUT. I LIKE THOSE, BUT THERE MIGHT BE OTHER WAYS TO GO

FOR THAT. >> HE'S THE CITY DUDE.

>> I NEVER THOUGHT I'D EVER HEAR ANYTHING.

>> THEY WORK PRETTY WELL. IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF THE NURSES AND MEDICAL WORKERS CROSSING THE STREET , THEN I THINK THEY ARE OKAY. THERE ARE CROSSING FLASHERS AND ALREADY IN PLACE . THEY WILL BE ALL RIGHT.

>> I WANT FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND . AS MENTIONED, THIS IS THE FIRST READING AND EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF US HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, IF WE VOTE YES, WE ARE MOVING INTO THE SECOND READING. I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT IT, BUT THEY VOTED YES. TODAY IS THE FIRST READING AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THE DISCUSSION. IF WE VOTE YES, I WANT PEOPLE -- WE ARE MOVING TO THE SECOND READING FOR THE FINAL MEETING.

>> I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AS WELL. WHAT DEMOGRAPHIC AND WHAT AREA WOULD BE GOOD TO HEAR FROM? YOU HAVE DOWNTOWN LIKE SHANE SAID COMMUTING UP AND DOWN. YOU HAVE HS YOU, THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND HENDRICK , SO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THOSE DISTRICTS, BUT ALSO AT LARGE. HE DIDN'T LIVE IN ANY OF THOSE AREAS, BUT HE WAS STILL USING THAT STREET.

IT'S NOT AS BAD AS SHUTTING DOWN PINE OR GRAPE, BUT IT'S SOMEWHAT SIMILAR. I WOULD HAVE SOME PRETTY GRAVE CONCERNS .

>> BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CHIEF FLOORS IS HERE.

CAN WE GET YOUR INPUT ON THIS? >> GOOD MORNING. FIRE CHIEF.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING MY OPINION. I DROVE BY THIS AREA YESTERDAY AND AM PRETTY FAMILIAR. JUST TO VISUALIZE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. PARKING IS A MAJOR , SO EVERYTHING TOWARDS THE WEST OF HICKORY STREET IS FINE, BUT CLOSING HICKORY DOES PRESENT ISSUES, ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY ACCESS. THAT WOULD BE AN AREA THAT WE WOULD STATE OPERATIONS AND THERE ARE ALSO ACCESS POINTS AND WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. THAT IS A VERY NARROW AREA THAT I CAN SEE THERE. I TALKED TO SOME EMPLOYEES THAT STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED THE ADDITIONAL PARKING, BUT DIDN'T HAVE A NEWS TO SHUT DOWN HICKORY. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE TOO FAST , SO MAYBE LOOKING AT ADDING SOME SPEED BUMPS OR SOMETHING TO RESTRICT SPEED IN THAT AREA TO SUFFICE WITHOUT HAVING TO CLOSE DOWN THE

STREET FULLY. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF?

>> CLOSING ON THE 21ST? >> WE DON'T USUALLY USED THAT

ACCESS POINT. >> THEY PUT STOP SIGNS ON THE CROSSWALKS TO HELP SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN WITHOUT HAVING SPEED BUMPS.

I KNOW SPEED BUMPS HAVE AN ISSUE WITH FULLY LOADED WATER TANK AND

FIRE TRUCK. >> A COUPLE STOP SIGNS.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ?

>> IF WE VOTE NO ON THIS, WHAT IS THE IMPACT TO THE INITIATIVE?

>> I WILL HAVE TO ASK STANLEY. >> IF IT DOESN'T PASS TODAY, IT

DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD. >> AS AN ALTERNATIVE, WE WILL LET THE STAFF TAKE THIS AND TAKE THE INPUT THAT WE HAVE OFFERED TODAY AND REWORK THIS AS AN ALTERNATIVE , SO IT DOESN'T THE

[00:35:02]

ENTIRE THING. >> WE CAN A MOTION TO IMPROVE

THE NORTH 21ST CLOSURE. >> IT IS LUMPED TOGETHER. WE

WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WAY. >> IF WE SEND IT BACK, THEY WILL HAVE TO START THE PROCESS AGAIN TO GO THROUGH. THEY HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THE CLOSURE OF NORTH 21ST AND WE DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION. WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CLOSURE OF NORTH 21ST ONLY AND THAT WOULD REMOVE HICKORY. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YOU COULD DO THAT. THE CLEANEST WAY IS JUST TO MOVE THE THING FORWARD AND IN THE PAST WHERE WE HAVE HAD ISSUES, A LOT OF TIMES , THE DEVELOPERS HAVE GONE BACK AND MAYBE RECONFIGURED WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AND FIRST READING, THEN CAME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. IT WOULD BE TO MOVE THE WHOLE THING MOVING FORWARD AND IF THERE ARE CHANGES BETWEEN THIS READING AND SECOND, THEN YOU CAN OUT AT SECOND READING AND WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE THE 21ST IF IT REMAINS THE SAME.

>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT. MOVE AND MAKE THE CHANGE.

>> AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 12?

>> YOU CAN SAY SOMETHING IF YOU REALLY WANT TO.

>> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT EMOTION AND SECOND. WE CAN MAKE CHANGES LATER. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BEARD AND SECOND BY PRICE. READY

TO VOTE. >> MOTION CARRIES.

[16. Ordinance (First Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on Amending Chapter 28, "Solicitations", of the Code of Ordinances, Article II - "Permit", Section 28-21 "Denial" and Section 28-22 "Revocation" (Shawna Atkinson)]

>> NOW, ITEM 16. COUNCILMAN REGAN, YOU HAD QUESTIONS ON THIS

? >> SOLICITATION PERMIT TO ALLOW DENIAL OF A SOLICITATION PERMIT IF THE APPLICANT IS UNDER DEFERRED AND THIS MAY BE MORE OF A QUESTION FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. THIS ONE CAUGHT MY EYE. IS ANY OTHER CITY DOING THIS WHERE THE CRITERIA IS, YOU CAN'T GET A DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITATION PERMIT IF YOU HAVE A FELONY. IF YOU HAVE A MISDEMEANOR , BUT DEFERRED ADJUDICATION, IS THAT A

CRITERIA? >> I HAVE DONE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND THE FEW THAT I LOOK AT DID NOT. THAT IS NOT THE TYPICAL WAY THESE ARE DONE. I DID LOOK TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THIS IS DONE IN THE STATE WILL DENY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES FOR CERTAIN . THEY HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR US TO ADD BEFORE SECOND READING JUST TO NARROW IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS IT THAT I FOUND. TO TRY TO NARROW WHAT TYPES IF SOMEONE HAS COMPLETED , DOES IT THEN NO LONGER ACT TO RECEIVING

THE PERMIT? >> WELL, THIS IS THAT BALANCING ACT . THE PRIMARY GOAL IS THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A FELONY WITH A PERMIT KNOCKING ON THE DOOR. THERE IS THE RIGHT TO DENY SOMEONE A PERMIT TO DO THAT IF THEY HAVE A FELONY. WITH THIS PROPOSAL, DEFERRED IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY A LOT OF PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE LEGAL COMMUNITY .

YOU ARE GUILTY AND IT'S NOT GOING ON THE RECORD. IT IS AN EASIER WAY TO UNDERSTAND , WHICH WOULD BE IF KYLE WAS SPEEDING.

HE DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT IT. HE WASN'T SPEEDING AND HE DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME OR RESOURCES TO FIGHT IT, THEN HE COULD FILE A NO CONTEST, THEN GET DIFFERED AND IT DOESN'T GO ON HIS RECORD IF HE COMPLETES THE TERMS. HERE, THAT FELONY NEVER COMES ON THE RECORD. FROM A DENIAL STANDPOINT, HOLDING SOMETHING AGAINST THEM THAT THERE NEVER CONVICTED OF , BUT ALSO FROM A PRACTICAL SIDE, I WOULD NEED INPUT FROM YOU GUYS ON IF THE RECORD IS SEALED , STAFF DOESN'T KNOW SOMEONE HAS --.

>> MAY I INTERJECT? IT DOES COME UP ON THE RECORD. THAT IS HOW I KNOW THEY ARE THERE. IT SHOWS DEFERRED ADJUDICATION .

>> EVENTUALLY, BUT IT WILL BE TYPICALLY SEALED.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A TIMEFRAME, BUT I HAVE SEVERAL INSTANCES FROM THE LAST YEAR WHERE I'VE SEEN THEM ON THERE.

[00:40:05]

>> I DON'T DO LAW. I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT IF THERE IS A TIME PERIOD WHERE THEY CAN SEAL IT. FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, YOU WOULD POTENTIALLY BE ABLE TO

SEE . 10 YEARS AGO, BUT . >> WHAT IS ON THEIR BACKGROUND

CHECK THAT I'M SAYING? >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO VOLUNTARILY DISC CLOSE. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY?

>> THEY WOULD CHECK NO, THEN THEY WOULD BE HONEST. THEY

HAVEN'T BEEN CONVICTED. >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THE TIMEFRAME FOR ANYTHING FALLING OFF OR BEING SEALED.

>> WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID IS WHERE SOMEONE PLEADS GUILTY FOR A FELONY OFFENSE, BUT LET'S SAY FIVE, SIX, 18 OR 10 YEARS, THERE IS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THEY PLED GUILTY AND ARE WORKING WITH SUPERVISION AND IF THEY GET TO THE END OF THE 10 YEAR PERIOD, THE CASE IS DISMISSED. SOME LANGUAGE WE WILL BRING FOR THE SECOND READING IN THE PAST IS THAT IF SOMEONE COMPLETES THE RAID CERTIFICATION, THEN WHO PLED GUILTY TO A FELONY OFFENSE, BUT NOT CONVICTED. THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS STILL THE SAME AND THE SAFETY RISK IS STILL OUT THERE. IF THEY CAN COMPLETE SUPERVISION AND GET IT DISMISSED, THAT IT'S NO LONGER.

IT IS REALLY A SITUATION WHERE I BELIEVE THE CITY IS SEEING WHERE FOLKS HAVE PLED GUILTY AND GOT DEFERRED AND THERE IS THAT TIME PERIOD WHERE THEY MAY MAKE IT THROUGH THE SUPERVISION OR NOT, BUT THERE IS STILL THAT SAFETY RISK. WE ARE KIND OF TRYING TO SHORE THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. THAT IS FOR THOSE FOLKS, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS SOMETHING AS DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE SOME LESSER OFFENSE, BUT SAY IT'S THEFT. THOSE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CITY GRANTING PERMISSION FOR THOSE FOLKS TO WALK AND KNOCK ON PEOPLE'S

DOORS. >> I'M OKAY WITH HAVING IT FORWARD AND FOR THE NEXT READING, I WOULD NEED TWO QUESTIONS ANSWERED. ONE, CAN WE LEGALLY DO THIS? WE ARE HOLDING THIS AGAINST SOMEONE WHO IS NOT CONVICTED OF A FELONY AND WE ARE DEPRIVING THEM OF THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS CONDUCT BUSINESSES. IF WE ARE SUED, THAT'S THE LAWSUIT AND YOU ARE DEPRIVING ME OF A RIGHT AND ARE HOLDING A NON-CONVICTION AGAINST ME . WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT THE GUINEA PIG OUT THERE. WE WILL BE SUED AS A CITY FROM PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM DOING SOMETHING BE LAWFULLY CAN-DO. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE ON DEFERRED ADJUDICATION ? WHILE YOU'RE ON ADJUDICATION, YOU CAN GET THIS PERMIT AND ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE TERMS, WHETHER THAT IS SIX MONTHS , TWO OR FIVE YEARS, THEN YOU ARE

ALLOWED TO GET THE PERMIT. >> WE HAVE A 30 DAY PERMIT AND A YEAR PERMIT, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK ONE YEAR LATER EVEN IF THEY WERE APPROVED TO DO IT, SO IT WOULD BE EVERY YEAR THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT THEM GETTING IT AGAIN.

>> I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET IS IF SOMEONE IS ON DEFERRED ADJUDICATION CURRENTLY , STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT AND SAY, NO. IF SOMEONE HAD IT FIVE YEARS AGO AND THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE TERMS AND THEY FORGOT ALL ABOUT THAT AND THEY ARE NO LONGER ON DEFERRED ADJUDICATION, IS THAT STILL A

BAR TO GETTING THEM A PERMIT? >> THAT GOES BACK TO, IS IT STILL ON THEIR RECORD? I SEE SOME OF THEM AND I DON'T KNOW THE TIMEFRAME FOR THEM FALLING OFF. IF THEY ARE FALLING OFF AND I DON'T SEE IT, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.

>> ALSO, STAFF ENFORCEMENT. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHETHER YOU CAN SEE OR NOT, LET'S PUT IT ASIDE. IS THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE, IS THIS PREVENTING THEM FROM ONLY GETTING A PERMIT WHILE THEY ARE ON DEFERRED? IS THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT TO FOREVER PREVENT THEM FROM GETTING A PERMIT WHETHER THEY COMPLETED OR NOT 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, IT IS PREVENTING THEM FOREVER. WHAT IS THE INTENT?

>> IT GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION OF HOW LONG WE CAN SEE IT ON THE RECORD, WHICH I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO, UNFORTUNATELY.

>> I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING IS, LET'S SAY IT HAPPENED AND IS DEFERRED ADJUDICATION OR HERS WAS COMPLETED TWO YEARS AGO. IT SHOWS UP ON THE RECORD AND IF THEY CAME AND SAID, HERE ARE THE TERMS THAT SHOW UP I'VE COMPLETED THIS AND YOU SEE THAT

[00:45:02]

IT IS COMPLETED. IT IS THE INTENT THAT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET A PERMIT OR IT IS ON THE COMPUTER REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY COMPLETED IT.

>> I WILL LET STANLEY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> WAS THAT YOUR QUESTION? >> IF THEY ARE DEFERRED, ARE

THEY PERMANENTLY BANNED? >> WE COULD WRITE IT THAT WAY OR THE ALTERNATIVE WAY THAT IF SOMEONE HAS COMPLETED THE DEFERRED ADJUDICATION , THEY ARE NO LONGER BARRED. THAT IS THAT YOU CAN BE RESOLVED ON THE APPLICATION, SO IF THEY CHECK UP AND DEFERRED FOR WHATEVER, THAT I HAVE COMPLETED THAT SIX MONTHS AGO AND RECEIVED A DISMISSAL AND I'M NOT CONVICTED , THEN THAT COULD BE RESOLVED ON THE APPLICATION, WHICH THEY HAVE TO

TRUTHFULLY FILL OUT. >> THE REPORT AND HAVE FINES AND SUPERVISION. ONCE THE ADJUDICATION IS COMPLETE AND THE TERMS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED AND THEY CAN PRODUCE THAT PAPERWORK SAYING THAT EVEN IF IT IS ON THE RECORD, THEY PRODUCE DOCUMENTS , THIS HAS ALL BEEN ADJUDICATED AND I'VE COMPLETED MY TERMS. HERE'S THE PAPERWORK. MOVE FORWARD.

>> IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

>> TO YOUR QUESTION EARLIER, THERE ARE OTHER CITIES. THEY DO THIS. BEN BROOKS TEXAS, MESQUITE TEXAS, BENBROOK TEXAS DOES THIS WITHIN A FIVE-YEAR RADIUS AND IT CAN BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK UP AND LOOKED THROUGH AND IT DEPENDS ON THE CITY AND THEIR INTENT WITH IT. THOSE ARE FOR THE SAME PURPOSES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOOKING AT AND THERE ARE OTHER CITIES WHO ARE IMPLEMENTING SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR IN WHAT WE ARE LOOKING

AT TODAY. >> THE STATE IN THAT FIVE YEARS IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE REPORT FROM THE STATE WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO IS TO TACK IT ON TO WHAT THE

STATE USES. >> FROM PROTECTING THE CITY PERSPECTIVE, STANLEY, DOES IT MINIMIZE RISK OF LAWSUIT FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS DENIED A PERMIT IF WE TIE IT TO IF YOU ARE ACTIVELY ON DEFERRED ADJUDICATION IF YOU CAN BE DENIED, BUT IF YOU COMPLETE THE TERMS, THEN IT IS FINE.

>> THERE ARE NO LAWSUITS THAT HAVE RESOLVED THAT, SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT DIRECTLY, BUT I CAN SAY THAT WHEN YOU NARROW THE SCOPE , THEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS BETTER AS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY

ISSUE . >> THIS LANGUAGE IS NARROW. THIS IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS THE SOLICITATION CANVASSING AND THE LANGUAGE IS IN THE ORDINANCE WITH EVEN THE SUPREME COURT CITATION THAT TALKS ABOUT THIS. THE DENIAL ONLY APPLIES TO FRAUDULENT CONDUCT OF THIS BUSINESS , ASSAULT AGAINST A PERSON, FALSIFIED INFORMATION, REGISTERED OFFENDER. THIS IS NOT JUST ANYTHING, BUT THINGS THAT TO STANLEY'S POINT, IT IS A NARROW FOCUS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS DECISION AND IT IS CLEARLY IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY INTEREST, SO CAN WE DO THIS? YEAH, WE CAN.

>> I'M SPEAKING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF US BEING POTENTIALLY SUED AND NOT WHETHER IT'S A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OR ANYTHING, BUT FROM A PRACTICAL LEVEL, STAFF IS THE ONE THAT LONG AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, YOU ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO DETERMINE THIS AND ENFORCE IT. IS IT EASIER ON STAFF IF IT'S TIED TO EARMARKS CLEAR MARKS. IF YOU TELL US ABOUT IT OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU HAVE TO JUST -- THERE IS A BOX. ARE YOU ON DEFERRED ADJUDICATION, YES OR NO, THEN THEY CAN BE DENIED AND IF IT'S COMPLETED , THEY DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT .

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE. >> I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE STAFF OUT THERE TRYING TO BE INVESTIGATORS IN THE CRIMINAL RECORDS , THEN TRYING TO SAY, YOU PLAYED NO CONTEST VERSUS GUILTY AND YOU HAVE DEFERRED ADJUDICATION. I WANT TO MAKE IT AS CLEAN-CUT AS POSSIBLE FOR YOU.

>> THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE I DO HAVE TO CONSULT WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR STANLEY TO SEE WHAT I'M ABLE TO DO.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING . IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 16? PLEASE COME FORWARD WITH YOUR NAME ON THE RECORD.

SEEING NO ONE AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN. SECOND BY MCALISTER. READY TO VOTE.

[17. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Amending Chapter 22, Parks and Recreation, Article I, In General, Sec. 22-5, Camping, Sleeping, Parking Overnight, of the Code of Ordinances (Lesli Andrews)]

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> NOW, ITEM 17 ON THE REGULAR

[00:50:06]

AGENDA AND I WILL ASK DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND REC TO PRESENT THE

ITEM. >> GOOD MORNING. PARKS AND RECREATION. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 22-5 ON CAMPING, SLEEPING AND OVERNIGHT PARKING. WE HAVE A LOUD CAMPING FOR MANY YEARS , BUT WE HAVE NOTICED CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN MAKE . THAT IS WHY WE ARE BRINGING THIS FOR YOU TODAY. WE NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO ISSUE A PERMIT ON A 24/7 BASIS WHERE IN THE PAST SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS THAT IF SOMEBODY DECIDES THAT AT 8:00 ON THURSDAY NIGHT THAT THEY WANT TO GO CAMPING , THEN THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO ONLINE AND GET THAT PERMIT . IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO HAVE PERMITTING NOW.

THIS PERMITTING BENEFITS MOSTLY THE CITY MARSHALS AS THEY MONITOR WHAT IS HAPPENING AROUND THE LAKE AND BEING ABLE TO KNOW WHO HAS A PERMIT TO BE OUT THERE, HOW LONG THEY ARE GOING TO BE OUT THERE. BENEFICIAL TO CITY MARSHALS ON A REGULAR BASIS. THE PAST ORDINANCE HAS A LIMIT OF 48 HOURS. OUR BUSIEST WEEKENDS ARE TYPICALLY THREE-DAY WEEKENDS WHEN THERE IS A HOLIDAY, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT BE MOVED FROM 48 TO 72 HOURS . THAT IS THE MAIN CHANGES. THIS ORDINANCE ALSO COVERS ALL CITY PROPERTY WHO ARE IN THE PAST, IT WAS ONLY PARKLAND. WE ARE EXPANDING THIS TO BE CITY PROPERTY, AS WELL AS PARKLAND AND PLAYGROUNDS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I MET WITH THE LAKE ASSOCIATION LAST WEEKEND AND TALKED ABOUT THIS. THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. THEY LIKED THE DIRECTION THE PARKS WAS GOING AND THE LAKE IN GENERAL, SO THEY ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC AND AS FAR AS THIS GOES, THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY PUSHBACK? OKAY.

>> NOT AT ALL. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> THIS IS APPLYING TO ALL CITY PARK. THIS ONLY APPLIES FOR CAMPING . THERE IS NO CAMPING IN OTHER PARTS.

>> WHAT THIS ALLOWS AS WE DO NOT ALLOW CAMPING IN , ON CITY PROPERTY OR ANY PARKS EXCEPT JOHNSON. THIS ALLOWS PARKING IN JOHNSON AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IT IS BANNED.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU CAN'T PARK -- YOU CAN'T CAMP AT ANY PARK. IT IS ONLY THESE TWO.

>> THANK YOU LESLIE. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE ITEM 17? SEEING NO ONE AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN REGAN. ND BY COUNCILMAN CRAVER. WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

[18. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Amending the Fee Ordinance to Add a Camping Fee for Overnight Camping in Johnson Park and Sea Bee Park, and Add a Commercial Breeder Permit Fee (Lesli Andrews)]

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 18 AND I WILL ASK LESLI ANDREWS AGAIN TO PRESENT THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS FOR CAMPING AND COMMERCIAL BREEDER PERMIT FEE AND WE COMBINED THESE TWO INTO ONE, SINCE THIS IS A FEE SCHEDULE CHANGE BUT FOR THE CAMPING FEE, WE ARE ALLOWING CAMPING IN PARKS. THIS PERMIT WOULD BE FOR $22 PER NIGHT OF CAMPING UP TO 72 HOURS. IF SOMEBODY JUST WANTS TO GO FOR THE DAY, THERE IS NO FEE FOR THAT. THAT IS STILL FREE. IT IS ONLY IF THEY PLAN ON SETTING UP A TEMP AND CAMPING OVERNIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE $22 IS WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. ALSO, THE COMMERCIAL BREEDER PERMIT FEE WITH THE ANIMAL AND ORDINANCE BEING CREATED , THERE IS NOT A PERMIT FEE CURRENTLY ON THE CITY COUNCIL FEE SCHEDULE , SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A $150 FEE FOR TWO YEARS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> AT THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, MR. YOUNG HAS COME AND SPOKEN ABOUT COMPARING THIS $150 FEE FOR $75 A YEAR TO OUR DANGEROUS DOG FEE, WHICH IS ONLY $50 A YEAR. CAN YOU GIVE THOUGHTS ON WHERE YOU CAME UP WITH $150 FOR TWO YEARS AND HOW THAT COMPARES WITH THE STOCK FEE? SHOULD WE LOOK AT ADJUSTING

THAT ? >> WE CAN LOOK AT ADJUSTING THAT. THIS IS A NEW FEE AND HANNA RECOMMENDED THE $150 BASED

[00:55:07]

ON THE RESEARCH THEY HAD DONE. IF STAFF HAS DIRECTED TO LOOK AT

THAT, THEN ABSOLUTELY. >> SOMETIMES YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO LOOK AT THINGS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER WHEN THEY DON'T REALLY GO TOGETHER. I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON COMPARING

THE DANGEROUS FEE . >> THERE MAY BE A REGISTRATION FEE, BUT YOU CAN'T PERMIT A DANGEROUS DOG , SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO.

>> IT SAYS DANGEROUS DOG PERMIT AND ANNUAL FEE IS $50. THE ONE THAT WE APPROVED LAST SUMMER. WE NEED TO REWORD THAT IF YOU

CAN'T DO THAT. >> I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

>> I HAVE THE ONE WE APPROVED LAST SUMMER.

>> THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT ITEM FROM THIS.

>> THE COMPARISON HAD BEEN MADE THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, SO I WANTED TO PHILOSOPHICALLY -- SOMEBODY WORKING A COMMERCIAL PRINTING OPERATION . THERE IS NO DANGEROUS DOG AND YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR A DANGEROUS DOG. WE'VE GOT SOMETHING OFF.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 18? THESE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FURTHER DISCUSSION, A MOTION AND SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE.

SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 19, I WILL ASK TIM

[19. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2025-04: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From The Owner, To Change The Zoning Of Approximately 2.5 Acres From Heavy Industrial (HI) To Light Industrial (LI). Located At 4397 Crawford Drive. Legal Description Being Block A, Lot 1, Of The Button Willow, Section 5 Subdivision, Abilene, Taylor County, Texas (Tim Littlejohn)]

LITTLEJOHN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPING SERVICE TO

PRESENT THIS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF 2025-04. THE SITUATION YOU WILL CONSIDER IS THE RESULT OF 2.5 ACRES FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATED AT 4397 CRAWFORD DRIVE. IT IS THE LOCATION MAP . HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP . AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS AREA HAS HAD A HISTORY OF DOWN ZONING INSTEAD OF MAINTAINING . HERE ARE PROPERTY VIEWS , SURROUNDING PROPERTIES .

HERE IS THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE USES. HERE IS THE REQUESTED USES WITHIN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. NOTIFICATIONS WORTH SENDING OUT, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY AND RETURN. THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. PNC DID HEAR THE CASE AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS ON ITEM 19? AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 19? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FURTHER QUESTIONS OR I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND. MOTION BY COLMAN MCALISTER AND SECOND BY REGAN. WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 20. IS THAT RIGHT? I

[20. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Amending Chapter 18, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Article X, "Stopping, Standing and Parking," Division 4, "Limited on Certain Streets," and Division 5, "Parking Meters," of the Abilene Code of Ordinances, and create a Paid Parking Program (Max Johnson)]

WILL ASK MAX JOHNSON TO PRESENT THIS ITEM.

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A FINAL READING FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE ORDINANCE FOR SOME DOWNTOWN PARKING . THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. THE CHANGES REMOVED REFERENCES TO THE PARKING METERS, WHICH WE HAVE NOT HAD DOWNTOWN FOR SEVERAL YEARS , SO THIS CLEANS UP THE ORDINANCE A LITTLE BIT AND REPLACES WITH A PAVED PARKING PROGRAM. AT THIS TIME, THE ONLY LOT WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR THAT PAVED PARKING IS ACROSS THE HOTEL , THEN THE ORDINANCE ALSO CHANGES THE SIGNS THAT YOU SEE DOWNTOWN AND ALLOWS FOR US TO ENFORCE THE LIMITED TIME PARKING ALONG THE STREETS DOWNTOWN. TIME MAXIMUMS FOR THE PAID PARKING PROGRAM AND EACH OFFENSE AFTER YOU GO , THE FIRST TWO HOURS RIGHT NOW IS

[01:00:03]

FREE AND AFTER YOU GO PAST THAT TWO HOURS, THEN THE CHARGES WILL BEGIN THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. ALL OF THE PARKING WILL BE IDENTIFIED CLEARLY MARKED FOR BOTH LIMITED, AS WELL AS PAVED

PARKING PROGRAM. ANY QUESTIONS? >> THE TWO HOURS IS SPECIFIC TO

THE PAVED PARKING AND THE LOT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THE TIME-LIMITED MOST ARE TWO HOURS AND THERE IS A SPOT AROUND THE POST OFFICE THAT IS A ONE HOUR AND THOSE WILL BE MARKED BY THE

SIGNS. >> THIS DOESN'T FORCE THAT INTO TWO OVERTIME? WHEN YOU SAID THAT, IT MADE ME THINK TO ASK THAT QUESTION. THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN DOESN'T FORCE THE ONE

HOUR IN TWO HOURS. >> NO, SIR. NO, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAX, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSING REPORTING OUT THERE OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS SINCE WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION. JUST SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, THIS IS ALLOWING THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PAID PARKING AND IT'S A BLANKET OVERLAY ACROSS AND ONLY THE PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM THE DOWNTOWN HOTEL WILL ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED WITH PAVED PARKING VIA THE SIGNS POSTED AROUND THAT LOT. AT THIS TIME, THAT IS THE ONLY LOT THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS.

>> THE STREETS DO NOT SUDDENLY BECOME PAID PARKING?

>> THEY DO NOT. >> SAME WITH THE PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM THE BUILDING? IT SUDDENLY DOESN'T BECOME ?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE DOWNTOWN PARKING IS LIMITED TO THE TWO HOURS, BUT IT'S NOT -- YOU DON'T PAY

UNLESS YOU HAVE A VIOLATION. >> NOTHING CHANGES FOR ANYONE EXCEPT FOR THE PARKING ACROSS THE DOWNTOWN HOTEL.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 20, COME FORWARD AND GIVE

YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T LEAD WITH THAT. WE ARE JUST FOCUSED ON THE DOWNTOWN PARKING , THE HOTEL DOWNTOWN PARKING, WHICH HAS CAUSED CONFUSION, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT CLEARLY SAID THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING CYPRESS STREET OR ANYTHING DOWNTOWN TO AFFECT BUSINESSES UNTIL LATER DATE AND I THINK THAT IS PART OF THE COMMUNICATION PROBLEM I'VE BEEN TRYING TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU GUYS. IF WE START WITH THE RIGHT INFORMATION, THEN THE CONVERSATION SHIFTS AND GOES IN A BETTER DIRECTION. RIGHT NOW, IT IS STILL A STRUGGLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU GET PEOPLE TO COME DOWNTOWN WHEN WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT DOWNTOWN PARKING. I UNDERSTAND IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO CHANGE AT ALL, BUT IT WOULD HAVE MADE MORE SENSE TO HELP DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES THRIVE INTO THE DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOCUS ON THE DOWNTOWN HOTEL NOW AND TALK ABOUT THE OTHER DISCUSSION LATER. THANK YOU FOR THE EQUIVOCATION, BUT I DO LIKE THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE AND PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN PARKING AND DON'T KNOW REALLY HOW TO FIX IT EXCEPT TO NOT COME. I HOPE THIS WILL HELP CLARIFY , BUT IN THE FUTURE IF YOU START WITH THE POSITIVES AND DIRECTION YOU ARE GOING , THEN CLARIFY RATHER THAN STARTING WITH THE MINUTE DETAILS , THEN IT WOULD LEAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE UP TO THE CONFUSION. IT WOULD BE

HELPFUL FOR FUTURE ENDEAVORS. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 20? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD AND I THINK WE HAVE HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES WE CAN'T CONTROL THE WAY THE MEDIA REPORTS WHAT WAS SAID AND THEY DISTORT IT AT TIMES. I APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE DOING CLARIFICATION. ANY DISCUSSION , I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND

SECOND . >> AT A BUSINESS EXPO, I SPOKE WITH MANY BUSINESS OWNERS AND THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING. THEY UNDERSTAND THE PLAN THAT WE ARE DOING AND ARE VERY GRATEFUL . THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH PAID PARKING ON ONE AND AND FREE PARKING. WITH AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> MOTION BY MCALISTER AND SECOND BY CRAVER. READY TO VOTE.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> WE WILL NOW MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND IT IS 9:35 A.M. AND WE RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT OF SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY,

[01:05:07]

551.072, 551.073, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT GIFTS AND DONATIONS, 551.074, PERSONAL MATTERS, 551.076, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT SECURITY DEVICES, 551.087, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT BUSINESS

PROSPECTS AND >> YAY! IN CONCLUSION -- IT IS

[RECONVENE]

NOW 10:36 A.M. AND WE RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION. NO BOATS OR

[22. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Appointing Members to Various Boards and Commissions per the City Charter (Shawna Atkinson) • Abilene Convention Center Hotel Development Corporation • Street Maintenance Advisory & Appeals Board]

ACTION WERE TAKEN DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO 22, THE APPOINTMENT AND/OR REAPPOINTMENT TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. ABILENE CENTER HOTEL DEVELOPMENT COURT DR. LYNN MURRAY AND STREET MAINTENANCE ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD, DAVID TODD REAPPOINTMENT. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR

THE RECORD. >> TAMMY, RESIDENT OF ABILENE. I ALWAYS WONDER IF IT MATTERS TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO HAVE CONVERSATION AND THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THAT IT IS THE NEW PRESIDENT JOINING THE ABILENE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD .

I'M CURIOUS AS TO MANY CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN PART OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHY WE WOULD HIRE -- IT'S NOT YOU ARE BORED, BUT APPOINTING A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER LIVED IN TURN WANT TO THIS BOARD, WHICH AS ONE WHO HAS TRIED TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR BOARDS AND WAS ASKED YESTERDAY HOW TO APPLY , IT SEEMS LIKE WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO LIVE IN TOWN TO BE ON THE BOARD AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN INTERESTING THING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECAUSE THE PERSON BEFORE THAT WAS PRESIDENT, AS WELL AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT JUST HAD TO STAY IN THE SAME PLACE AND I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE NEW BOARD APPOINTMENT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER LIVED IN THE TOWN. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 22? NO ONE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND.

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY MCALISTER.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY CRAVER. WE ARE

READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES.

[23. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving Project Hamilton for the Development Corporation of Abilene, Inc. (Misty Mayo)]

>> NOW, ITEM 23. I WILL ASK CEO OF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF

ABILENE TO PRESENT THE ITEM. >> HELLO, EVERYONE. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER, WELCOME. WELCOME TO YET ANOTHER EXPANSION OF A LOCAL EXISTING COMPANY. I AM DELIGHTED TO BRING IT TO YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ABILENE'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS A LOCAL EXISTING COMPANY WHO SEEKS TO EXPAND IN ABILENE . AS ALWAYS, I ADDED OUR VISION AND MISSION TO HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS FOCUSED ON LEADING ECONOMIC GROWTH OR FOCUSED ON CREATING A FUTURE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND A FUTURE FOR THE CHILDREN OF OUR COMMUNITY, SO THAT THEY CAN WORK HERE AND LIVE AND STAY HERE. OUR STRATEGIC PLAN, WE ARE TRENDING AND TRACKING WELL AHEAD OF OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. WE HAVE YET ANOTHER FEW AWARDS TO ADD TO OUR TO CELEBRATE ABILENE AND PROMOTE COMMUNITY. I ALWAYS LIKE TO ADD AGAIN FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE THE JOURNEY FROM PROSPECT TO COMPANY PARTNER . OF COURSE, IT IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN THIS ONE SLIDE , YET I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HERE, YOUR VOTE TODAY ENABLES ME AS A BUSINESSWOMAN TO NEGOTIATE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND THE CONTRACT ALWAYS BY TEXAS LAW HAS WHAT'S CALLED A CLAWBACK, SO THE COMPANY PERFORMS OR THEY CLAWBACK THE INCENTIVE AND THOSE TERMS ARE OUTLINED IN OUR CONTRACTS. PROJECT HAMILTON AS I MENTIONED AND I WILL CONTINUE TO MENTION IS A LOCAL EXISTING COMPANY. IN FACT, OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS OUT OF THE 40 PROJECTS THAT THE D.C. OA HAS SIGNED CONTRACTUALLY MADE A PARTNERSHIP THROUGH AN AGREEMENT OUT A 40 PROJECTS, 33 HAVE BEEN WITH LOCAL EXISTING COMPANIES. WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS ABLE TO REINVEST BACK TO A PROJECT WHEN WE ARE REINVESTING BACK INTO A PROJECT