[0:05] >> okay, it is september 24th, 2024

[0:09] and this is a meeting of the kerrville city council.

[0:13] I am calling it to order at 6:00 p.m.

[0:18] and if at this time councilmember will

[0:23] lead us in the implication of the pledge.

[0:28] >> if you'll pray with me.

[0:30] dear heavenly father, we ask special prayers tonight

[0:32] for our mayor who is having health issues.

[0:34] be with him and bring him to a quick recovery

[0:39] so he can come back and be our leader.

[0:42] and be with all those in the hospital tonight

[0:45] and that they would have answers to their questions

[0:48] and a remedy to whatever's ailing them.

[0:51] tonight, be with us as we gather and talk

[0:53] about important things about our city

[0:54] that we can have some resolve and folks will leave

[0:56] with the things they need the answers

[0:59] and the decision that pleases and is the best for kerville.

[1:05] be with our first responders,

[1:07] bless them everyday and keep them safe.

[1:08] also keep those who protect this country

[1:09] outside of our borders.

[1:12] in your son's name we pray, amen.

[1:15] [ pledge of allegiance ]

[1:33] >> announcements?

[1:37] >> we have a few.

[1:39] welcome everybody tonight.

[1:40] this is the big weeekend, the kerville triathlon.

[1:44] we look forward to this every year.

[1:45] got a lot in people in town, so we encourage everyone

[1:47] to be patient.

[1:51] we will have some traffic street closures.

[1:53] we'll post those on the city website and facebook pages.

[1:54] those start at

[1:57] 6:00 a.m. On saturday and sunday.

[1:59] on saturday they are down by noon

[2:00] and

[2:02] sunday done by 2:00 p.m., so it will be

[2:06] traffic may be snarled for a little

[2:09] while but it does bring in a lot

[2:12] of people. I hope everyone can get out

[2:15] . It is a

[2:18] lot of fun.

[2:19] some of these things we will go over

[2:21] again in the future meetings because

[2:22] there's a lot going on in october.

[2:24] first up,

[2:27] art in

[2:29] the park is a new event and I don't

[2:30] know a lot about

[2:32] it, if you have questions , we can

[2:33] fill you in.

[2:39] a haunted house

[2:42] at the municipal pool

[2:45] and scary tours

[2:48] at 6:00 p.m. And we

[2:51] also have two more events.

[2:54] the mountain bike festival.

[2:57] that is october 26th and 27.

[3:03] some great trails.

[3:06] if you want to get information

[3:07] on how to get involved or participate

[3:09] , you

[3:11] could go to the parks and rec website. And

[3:12] big event

[3:15] will be october 31st. Family

[3:18] fright night.

[3:21] 5:30 p.m. That begins and

[3:24] I think there are still openings for sponsors

[3:27] if you want to have a booth there.

[3:33] I have one more.

[3:36] you want to give blood

[3:39] this weekend , the

[3:40] fire department is having a blood

[3:42] drive at the opposite end

[3:44] of where the traffic will be. It's from

[3:48] 9:00 a.m. Until 3:00 p.m. Keep that

[3:51] in mind .

[3:54] and that is it for me.

[3:57] >> any items

[4:00] of community interest

[4:03] ? Thank you.

[4:06] next we have

[4:09] a kindness award

[4:15] and if

[4:24] lucy stebbins

[4:27] will meet me up front.

[4:40] >> [ captioner cannot get clear audio

[4:42] ]

[5:57] how did you get started doing this?

[6:00] >> [

[6:03] inaudible ]

[6:18] >> you are a shining example

[6:21] of what young people should

[6:24] be doing in the community.

[6:27] thank you.

[6:30] grandparents to make trips to the school

[6:34] and your fellow students, thank

[6:37] you. Congratulations.

[6:40] >> [ applause ]

[6:46] do we have any

[6:47] school administrators in the room?

[7:07] a proclamation

[7:10] whereas

[7:12] future strength depends on providing

[7:14] a high quality education to all students

[7:16] teacher quality matters

[7:19] than any other school

[7:22] related factor ;and, whereas

[7:24] teachers spend countless hours preparing

[7:26] lesson plans, supporting students

[7:31] ;and,

[7:32] whereas where the community recognizes

[7:33] and supports teachers in educating

[7:34] the children

[7:36] of this community ;and, whereas this

[7:40] year's focus is on the theme valuing

[7:43] teacher voices

[7:45] toward a new social contract for education

[7:49] [ inaudible ]

[8:15] >> [ captioner cannot get clear audio

[8:19] ]

[9:07] >> tell us who

[9:10] you are and what your role is.

[9:13] >> thank you for having us and recognizing

[9:16] our educators.

[9:21] professionally I could not be more

[9:22] proud this community and

[9:25] the support we receive from

[9:28] stakeholders and parents and

[9:31] for my own kids.

[9:43] the work that they do

[9:46] till they leave

[9:49] the classrooms

[9:51] and I will turn it over to you.

[9:52] >>

[9:55] I teach construction

[9:58] and

[10:01] I'm the soccer coach.

[10:04] we are building a

[10:07] tiny home in construction class and

[10:08] we

[10:10] got a new a lot of

[10:13] new robotics things

[10:15] >> how long you been with the district?>>

[10:19] 11 years.

[10:20] >> 18 months.

[10:28] >> I teach

[10:31] sixth grade.

[10:37] I have been there for

[10:40] a while.

[10:45] >> [ captioner cannot get clear audio

[10:46] ]

[11:40] >> [ inaudible - low volume ]

[12:23] >> thank you for making our

[12:26] school district --

[12:32] >> [ applause ]

[12:47] >> okay.

[12:50] we are at

[12:53] the

[12:59] visitors/citizens forum

[13:02] >>

[13:07] you will see me a few times tonight

[13:11] about getting

[13:14] truth

[13:17] to what is being done.

[13:23] the lawsuit

[13:26] talking about soliciting

[13:29] ordinances . The

[13:31] perspective being put out by the two

[13:34] different sized differ in the city

[13:35] is putting out

[13:38] most of the ordinances were left in play

[13:41] . Solicitors in particular

[13:44] ordinance from what

[13:47] I can read from it

[13:50] was gutted as it

[13:53] was presented.

[13:54] and the interesting part for me personally

[13:56] is what you were

[13:59] left with are two

[14:02] main things. One the no soliciting sign

[14:04] being put in front of someone's house

[14:08] will this be upheld and

[14:11] precisely what

[14:13] I suggested that you do because it

[14:14] solved

[14:17] your problem without the extra

[14:20] expense of a permitting process.

[14:23] in the future

[14:26] , maybe

[14:27] take more consideration asked what's

[14:29] being said and

[14:31] putting up the proper perspective

[14:35] on the

[14:38] election one. Best I can tell , you're

[14:40] able to tell people where to put a tent

[14:41] but

[14:44] you cannot keep them

[14:46] from walking around in the parking lot

[14:47] ,

[14:50] which ultimately you could've

[14:51] known before hand and should have.

[14:56] I guess the sign counts did not

[14:59] get considered

[15:02] at the end of the day

[15:05] , when put out press releases,

[15:08] if you could put out something that depicts

[15:11] what is happening.

[15:14] to say

[15:17] that they were upheld

[15:19] kind of misses what really happened

[15:20] .

[15:23] thank you.

[15:28] >> moving on to the consent agenda.

[15:29] is there anyone

[15:32] who would like

[15:35] to pull any items?

[15:38] >> we have one citizen

[15:44] who wishes to speak .

[15:50] >> do

[15:53] you need to read it in?

[15:56] >> 4.a ordinance no. 2024-21,

[15:59] second reading. An ordinance amending chapter 60 of the code

[16:02] of ordinances, city of kerrville, texas; by changing

[16:05] the zoning of an approximate

[16:07] 5.51 acre property known as 2029 junction highway (sh 27);

[16:11] from a planned development

[16:14] zoning district (pdd) to a

[16:16] general commercial zoning district (c-3); and providing

[16:17] other matters relating to the

[16:22] subject. (d paxton, director of zoning and development) (passed

[16:25] this was passed unanimously. Unanimously on 1st reading)

[16:29] >> I would like to

[16:32] go ahead and pull

[16:35] 4-d

[16:37] , and then I will need a motion on

[16:38] the others.

[16:39] >> I make

[16:41] a motion we approved the us

[16:44] consent agenda -- second?

[16:47] all in favor?

[16:50] any opposed? It passes.

[16:53] let's go ahead and

[16:56] look at

[16:59] 4-d

[17:02] .

[17:05] do want to read that?

[17:08] 4.d resolution no. 41-2024. A resolution adopting the city of

[17:10] kerrville's 2025 state legislative priorities for the

[17:13] 89th texas legislature. (m hayes, city attorney)

[17:26] >>

[17:29] I'm not here

[17:32] to suggest that you do or do not

[17:35] adopt this. I personally have problems

[17:36] with

[17:38] a few of them but, forgive me, I could

[17:41] not go to your workshop.

[17:44] to hear the presentation.

[17:50] as I'm reading it you have

[17:55] letters of things you are generally supporting

[17:59] --I don't remember what it was.

[18:02] b was talking about

[18:05] home rule and finances

[18:09] and it appears that it would

[18:12] be you supporting

[18:15] legislation that may or may not

[18:18] remove the tax cap

[18:21] . If the wording

[18:24] in it --

[18:27] in our name and

[18:30] , I think, if you are going to

[18:31] be doing something like that, it would

[18:33] be nice

[18:35] to tell the public what it is you

[18:38] are supporting. If there is a way

[18:42] when legislation

[18:45] is being supported or opposed

[18:48] , that we

[18:51] actually find out publicly

[18:54] which ones are

[18:57] being spoken about . I'm never

[19:00] really sure --

[19:03] is there a specific organization

[19:06] that we choose

[19:07] as our proxy? Is that how it works?

[19:09] we're just signing

[19:12] some sort of group memo. No?

[19:15] well if it's none of

[19:18] that, then any time you're asked

[19:19] to support something, it would be

[19:20] nice if publicly we were being told

[19:23] which ones you are supporting or opposing

[19:24] as far

[19:27] as legislation. I don't think the public

[19:30] is behind removing that

[19:33] , and the other --the hotel

[19:36] where you want to use

[19:38] funds for something other than what

[19:39] it

[19:42] is restricted to something

[19:45] in particular. I would think you should tell

[19:46] people

[19:48] that is what you're doing to use

[19:51] the money to go back into

[19:54] putting more heads

[19:57] in beds. And the unused part ,

[19:59] being able to sell property outside

[20:03] of that and selling

[20:05] park land that you don't intend to

[20:06] use, again ,

[20:09] it would be nice to know

[20:10] if you are supporting legislation

[20:12] to do that. Thank you.

[20:17] >> mr. Hayes, do want to clarify any that?>>

[20:18] the one about

[20:21] municipal revenue

[20:24] , as I said in the presentation

[20:27] is every time 10

[20:30] or 20 bills filed for

[20:32] more exemptions or property taxes

[20:36] and we want

[20:37] to get a handle on that and figure

[20:39] out what the impact

[20:42] --what else --the

[20:45] hotel tax --

[20:48] it's all about heads

[20:50] in beds and we are appreciative of that

[20:51] sometimes

[20:54] we want to support that they

[20:55] can remove restrictions and the third

[20:57] one is we

[21:00] have pocket parks

[21:03] less than a quarter of an acre and

[21:05] they may essentially be a lot between

[21:06] two

[21:09] other homes

[21:11] and they were mistakenly planned it

[21:12] that way

[21:15] so instead of going to the time and

[21:16] expense

[21:18] of putting it up for an election ,

[21:21] could we not avail ourselves

[21:24] to exemptions that are already

[21:25] built in lamont that apply to other

[21:27] cities not our size

[21:29] that allow them after public notice

[21:30] to get rid of

[21:33] those because dish other than

[21:38] mowing the grass once or twice year

[21:39] we are not doing anything.

[21:40] >>

[21:42] this list is as much about

[21:45] optics that we have an interest

[21:47] in ends neither pro nor, but it's

[21:51] once we want to have a anger on

[21:54] so we have to decide later

[21:57] if we are in favor what

[22:00] comes up.

[22:01] >> with

[22:03] the 6000 bills filed

[22:09] --

[22:12] [ inaudible ]

[22:18] monitoring are just looking

[22:21] at it.

[22:22] >> remember,

[22:24] 8000 bills are filed.

[22:26] so we are trying to get broad strokes

[22:30] about what we will be looking for

[22:33] to keep our eyes on.

[22:39] >> okay. Can I get a

[22:42] motion?

[22:43] >> I move

[22:45] that we approved that. All in

[22:48] favor? Any opposed??

[22:53] that is the end of the consent agenda.

[22:54] we are on

[22:57] to item

[23:00] 5a

[23:02] >> 5.a ordinance no. 2024-24, second reading. An ordinance

[23:06] adopting the annual budget for the city of kerrville, texas,

[23:08] fiscal year 2025; providing appropriations for each city

[23:09] department and fund; containing

[23:11] a cumulative clause; and containing a savings and

[23:15] severability clause.

[23:21] and we do have one citizen

[23:24] speaker signed up.

[23:27] >>

[23:30] I know we have seen his

[23:33] but I have information

[23:35] if there's anything you'd like to

[23:36] see specifically. This is

[23:39] the second reading in a

[23:42] very specific motion.

[23:44] one thing I wanted to point out is

[23:45] a new item

[23:48] that you've not seen in

[23:51] the past so I will talk

[23:54] about that and

[23:57] we will talk about that after

[24:00] the fact. It won't be included in

[24:01] the

[24:03] final budget [

[24:06] inaudible ]

[24:12] also on policies,

[24:16] we are working on

[24:18] them diligently and will bring back

[24:19] specific policies

[24:22] for review as we find changes

[24:24] and bring them back one at a time

[24:28] and we are working on how that

[24:31] will look. You can see

[24:33] the same requirement for 2 motions

[24:36] for the adoption and [ inaudible ]

[24:43] >>

[24:46] any discussion?

[24:58] >>

[25:01] I end up coming up.

[25:04] budget time and keep bringing up

[25:06] these topics until somebody has the

[25:07] courage

[25:09] to address them. Basically streets

[25:10] and

[25:13] the water fund . Streets,

[25:16] in particular

[25:19] , the city knows that we have

[25:22] a street expense and maintenance expense

[25:25] that we accrue

[25:28] every year. $5 million.

[25:30] paid someone to give us that estimate.

[25:34] you look in your budget

[25:37] on whatever page it is

[25:40] , I think

[25:42] it's 110. And the street maintenance

[25:43] amount that we

[25:46] are budgeting to put that 5 million

[25:49] is 2.3. Is

[25:52] a shortfall. It is an unreported

[25:53] shortfall because we are not actually

[25:55] killing

[25:58] the accrual of that expense in our budget.

[26:00] we've been doing that and we've known

[26:04] this amount

[26:06] since we hired the consultant in 2019

[26:07] and give us that assessment and yet

[26:10] we still do not report it.

[26:13] it's highlighting

[26:16] a budget imbalance

[26:19] and someone will get up and say that's

[26:21] not true. This is just to inform the

[26:22] public.

[26:25] and then the water system

[26:28] the reuse system

[26:30] is a mutually exclusive system from

[26:34] the potable and

[26:37] sewer system . Yet the cost

[26:40] of distributing reused water is

[26:43] being allocated to customers

[26:46] that do not receive reuse water.

[26:49] you have one class of customer subsidizing

[26:52] another, which is nothing more than

[26:54] a tax on the water customers. It does

[26:55] not

[26:58] account --you cannot attribute

[27:00] the cost of the reuse distribution system

[27:03] to the service being provided to the

[27:07] water customer. This year and for

[27:10] the next five , I think

[27:13] the next four after this, the reuse debt

[27:16] is close to $2 million

[27:19] per year. This year alone there

[27:21] is debt service that the city is paying

[27:22] of $2 million

[27:25] or 1.8. And the

[27:28] revenue being received

[27:31] is budgeted as

[27:33] less than 200,000. It's not that you

[27:34] have to pay it

[27:37] all in one year. But

[27:40] you have to set up a

[27:43] long-term plan by raising those rates,

[27:45] and I understand they are contracts

[27:46] ,

[27:49] but they cannot be enforced if they

[27:50] are

[27:51] forcing the city to give away something

[27:52] of value

[27:55] and that is what the reuse

[27:57] system does right now. We are distributing

[27:58] water to customers

[28:04] that are receiving

[28:07] free service. Please look

[28:10] at that.

[28:16] >>

[28:19] we have

[28:22] two motions. But I would

[28:25] make a motion to approve ordinance

[28:28] 2024

[28:31] [ inaudible ] on

[28:34] the second reading.

[28:37] it is the second

[28:40] reading now.

[28:41] >>

[28:43] second reading .

[28:44] >>

[28:46] second reading.

[28:47] >> all

[28:49] in favor?

[28:55] >> [

[28:58] roll call ]

[29:16] >> can I have a second motion.

[29:19] >> I will ratify

[29:22] to adopt the vote that will require raising

[29:26] revenue from property taxes.

[29:29] >> do we have

[29:32] a second.

[29:35] all in favor?

[29:38] any opposed??

[29:41] okay.

[29:44] 5.b ordinance no. 2024-23,

[29:47] second reading. An ordinance

[29:48] levying an ad valorem (property) tax for the use and

[29:50] support of the municipal government for the city of

[29:52] kerrville, texas, for fiscal year 2025; apportioning each

[29:54] levy for specific purposes; and providing when taxes shall

[29:56] become due and when same shall

[29:59] become delinquent if not paid.

[30:11] >>

[30:14] I do have information if

[30:17] you have questions.

[30:19] this does require a roll call vote

[30:21] in one motion.

[30:22] >> any discussion?

[30:29] then we will call for the vote.

[30:35] the motion.

[30:38] >> I motion

[30:41] to approve

[30:44] that the property tax rate

[30:45] be increased by the adoption of a tax

[30:47] rate of

[30:50] .5595

[30:52] , which is effectively a 2.77% increase

[30:53] in

[30:56] the tax rate.

[31:02] >> [ roll call

[31:05] ]

[31:17] >>

[31:23] a public hearing .

[31:26] >> we have

[31:29] two citizen speakers signed up.

[31:35] >>

[31:37] this is a little bit of a new process.

[31:40] you state law that requires us to

[31:41] the public hearing on the city

[31:44] building fees,

[31:45] which are included within the fee schedule.

[31:47] it was easier to bring it

[31:50] at once and make it

[31:52] more consistent. The fee schedule

[31:55] included in the final budget document

[31:58] so that we align and this will be

[31:59] a

[32:02] separate resolution. The

[32:03] fee schedule attached to your packet

[32:05] references

[32:08] credit card fee is tbd

[32:11] and we've since updated that to

[32:14] be 3% and the reason it was

[32:16] to be determined is were trying to get

[32:19] the most historical data to see what

[32:20] were actually paying

[32:22] and this is designed as a cost recovery

[32:23] and not

[32:25] as a revenue that would benefit the fund.

[32:29] the fee schedule and front

[32:32] of you highlights everywhere

[32:35] and surrounded by

[32:38] boxed in red's you can see the change

[32:40] and everything else is the same as

[32:41] it was

[32:44] originally presented. City pays

[32:47] $25,000 a month and

[32:50] service fees for

[32:53] electronic processing

[32:56] we expected to be 250,000

[32:59] and you can see

[33:02] 160,000

[33:05] . This is a cost

[33:08] recovery fee.

[33:09] it's used to offset fees associated

[33:11] with costs that the city incurs

[33:14] city has assumed this caused

[33:17] so the expense budgeted

[33:19] for this caused a share but everyone

[33:20] contributes to

[33:23] that fund not just

[33:24] those who take it vantage of that

[33:26] card service. This fee

[33:29] continues to grow

[33:32] . We worked with three different

[33:35] service companies over the past couple

[33:37] of months to make sure processes were lining

[33:40] what is allowable and what is not

[33:41] and make sure we

[33:44] have [ inaudible ] talked

[33:47] to the audit firm to make sure we

[33:49] are compliant as far as accounting

[33:53] . This will be reported

[33:56] as a revenue and expense so we can

[33:57] track how

[33:58] much we are bringing in [ inaudible ]

[34:02] if we are over collecting

[34:05] we can address that.

[34:11] it is a common practice

[34:17] in I've spoken to them

[34:20] we researched a dozen cities and

[34:22] personally talked to six or eight

[34:26] on their processes. Charges

[34:29] are 3 to 4%

[34:32] and some

[34:35] of them charge for electronic payments

[34:56] and happy to walk you through any questions

[35:00] but we've done a lot of homework

[35:01] >> [ captioner cannot clearly understand

[35:03] speaker ]

[35:09] >> I'm

[35:12] going to go ahead and open the

[35:15] public hearing

[35:18] at 6:35.

[35:36] >> [ inaudible - low volume

[35:39] ]

[35:45] >> commercial utility

[35:47] 3 dollars. There is nothing in here

[35:51] that says a resident should

[35:54] be charged one dollar on a regular

[35:56] bill into dollars on an irrigation bill.

[35:59] it means we are paying 3 dollars for

[36:00] storm water

[36:03] ,

[36:06] but we are not using

[36:09] anymore water then an

[36:12] average household and I

[36:15] went back to check my own those.

[36:16] I'm not using anywhere close to the

[36:18] average water bill of

[36:21] 5300 gallons a month.

[36:23] when we built our house , we were

[36:24] encouraged to

[36:27] put in another meter because it

[36:30] would not add to the stress

[36:36] of the sewer

[36:39] . So

[36:42] we put in that meter and

[36:45] I would like to see the

[36:48] stormwater fee taken off

[36:51] the irrigation meter on

[36:54] the residents or see an

[36:57] adjustment somehow

[36:59] where the same as any other people

[37:00] in

[37:01] the city except we have 2 meters.

[37:03] we use no

[37:06] more and no less than other

[37:09] residences,

[37:11] and it's unfair to charge us . And

[37:12] when there

[37:15] is a drought and we go into

[37:18] stage 4, we cannot even use it so then

[37:21] we are charged 2

[37:22] dollars for something we cannot use,

[37:24] but we are still paying

[37:27] on the residential , and

[37:30] the reason for that was

[37:33] the irrigation did not pay for the

[37:35] sewer. But we are paying it on a regular

[37:36] residential bill.

[37:39] so

[37:41] I would like to know what will be

[37:42] done to

[37:45] correct that. And, again,

[37:48] we are getting awful close

[37:51] to three --three quarters of

[37:53] $1 million coming out of the water fund

[37:57] and the water needs for future for

[37:59] upgrading infrastructure are dramatic

[38:03] . That money is not being

[38:06] put aside. This account is

[38:09] referred to as a more delicate compared

[38:12] to the general fund , and if that is

[38:15] the case , I

[38:17] don't believe we should be taking

[38:18] money out of the

[38:21] water fund for street repair , and

[38:24] on top of that there's no dedicated fun.

[38:27] no one would know

[38:30] how much was taken out of the water fund

[38:33] for particular

[38:36] street projects.

[38:38] unless there is a dedicated fund or work

[38:39] orders or something to

[38:42] match up.

[38:45] and the water study six

[38:48] years ago was talking

[38:50] about the dramatic needs for our area

[38:53] with inflation those numbers are probably

[38:56] going to be blown out of the water.

[38:57] I

[39:00] would like to see more attention and elimination

[39:03] of the street used to be

[39:06] and the storm use fee for residents

[39:08] that we are already paying it. Thank you.

[39:18] >> so

[39:21] I'm a talk about

[39:24] back to the water.

[39:26] something you should be considering.

[39:30] the more reliance we put on

[39:33] base rates to adjust the water revenues,

[39:36] the more directly

[39:39] we are impacting in a negative way

[39:42] the ones using less water. If we use

[39:45] a base rate this year I think we are

[39:46] adding

[39:48] 5 dollars a month or something like that

[39:49] ,

[39:51] doing that

[39:54] physically spreads the cost across

[39:55] everyone irrespective of how much

[39:57] water that they use.

[40:00] that is not the

[40:03] fairest way and it rewards the big

[40:04] water users

[40:06] and penalizes the lower

[40:09] water users. The other one

[40:12] I was surprised to see is there is

[40:13] a

[40:15] new fee

[40:18] for someone trying to pull

[40:21] out of the

[40:23] --if you understand a lot about how

[40:24] they go about doing that,

[40:26] that you will never be collected because

[40:27] the way it is

[40:30] set up, the person will

[40:33] petition the city not

[40:35] asking permission to be removed but declaring

[40:39] that they need to be removed.

[40:41] the city says you have to pay us a

[40:42] fee and

[40:45] they say we don't want to, 45 days

[40:46] go

[40:48] by and they're automatically administratively removed.

[40:52] that the has

[40:54] no teeth. There's no real benefit

[40:55] not

[40:58] to mention it flies in

[41:00] the face of the actual logic behind

[41:04] the rule. The reason people can

[41:07] pull out of it is its regulation

[41:10] without representation.

[41:11] they live outside the city limits

[41:13] and cannot vote for anything but

[41:16] the city are regulating them on

[41:19] subdivisions and signs.

[41:22] adding this to someone who

[41:24] cannot vote as to whether this can

[41:25] exist

[41:28] or not is kind of perverted.

[41:30] to be adding more regulation to a

[41:31] population

[41:32] that cannot speak for themselves in

[41:34] this regard , and

[41:37] like I said , if you do not

[41:40] respond

[41:43] to their position

[41:45] , it will be administratively approved

[41:46] anyway so

[41:49] why bother. And it is $500.

[41:51] I know a couple other cities have

[41:52] done this but we can

[41:55] do better.

[41:58] I would urge you

[42:00] to take that out before somebody ends

[42:01] up

[42:04] challenging that.

[42:09] >> let me speak to that issue. And

[42:10] he

[42:13] brings up a good point. And if

[42:15] we apply the fee and they do not pay

[42:16] it in

[42:19] 45 days

[42:22] the property will be removed.

[42:25] landowners

[42:27] want us to go through the process

[42:28] of certifying the

[42:29] information that they've provided

[42:33] and they wanted put on the agenda

[42:37] for you to take action and

[42:40] we go through that process

[42:41] it's 3 to 4 hours of staff time to go

[42:43] through that so it's

[42:46] one of these unfunded

[42:47] mandates because when they submit

[42:49] this application we have to

[42:52] review it and we thought out of a

[42:53] sense

[42:55] of fairness

[42:56] --

[42:57] >> the practical side of what we

[42:58] do not know is should

[43:01] ever get reverted

[43:04] were people realize that water

[43:07] is a big thing and how do

[43:10] I overcome this,

[43:12] the city council can say we disagree

[43:16] with this and it is an

[43:19] administrative cost we are trying

[43:22] to prepare what will happen.

[43:31] >>

[43:34] the base water fee

[43:37] is inflation-adjusted.

[43:58] >> any other discussions

[44:01] ?

[44:02] >> I have a question.

[44:07] I would not expect you spent time

[44:10] doing this

[44:12] but you know approximately how much

[44:13] they are?

[44:16] over the difference?

[44:19] on all of them?

[44:22] >>

[44:25] I can speak to the

[44:28] utility side

[44:31] and on the utility side

[44:34] what was the cost

[44:37] that we were paying in the beginning

[44:38] of

[44:40] last year or even midyear

[44:42] compared to what we are paying now

[44:46] and what have

[44:49] those increases been and if we

[44:52] are doing meter sets,

[44:54] there's not a lot of profit there

[44:55] and we want to

[44:58] make sure that

[45:01] we are charging something

[45:04] close to equal for that and making

[45:06] sure we cover our labor. Anywhere

[45:10] from 4 to 8% depending on which one

[45:13] it is.

[45:15] we did not do a budgeted increase

[45:19] because we just don't

[45:22] know. We may

[45:25] have a year where we put in 50

[45:28] such a budget and increase

[45:31] , we

[45:34] do make sure that the cost

[45:37] [ inaudible ]

[45:40] that we cover the cost of the labor

[45:46] did that help you?

[45:49] >>

[45:51] some of them were a small increase.

[45:52] >>

[45:53] it

[45:55] depends on what the part is

[45:58] and sometimes

[46:01] we did not catch an increase

[46:04] we hope

[46:07] we will see it level

[46:10] and we seen them kind of

[46:13] level out.

[46:17] 22 and 23 were rough.

[46:23] >>

[46:26] anymore speakers?

[46:29] I will

[46:31] close the public hearing at 6:46.

[46:35] any other counsel discussion?

[46:38] then I need a motion.

[46:41] >> I am move

[46:44] we

[46:47] approve this. On favor?

[46:50] any opposed?

[47:11] >>

[47:14] I want to start this off

[47:17] and

[47:19] introduce the new airport manager.

[47:20] he comes

[47:23] to us from

[47:27] the rio grande valley was the assistant

[47:29] city manager there in charge of the

[47:32] airport. For quite some time. He was

[47:34] going to be here a few weeks ago and

[47:35] we were going

[47:38] to introduce him

[47:41] , but he's here tonight

[47:44] to talk about eminent domain.

[47:47] be nice to

[47:48] him on his first meeting. He's been

[47:49] here for 5 and half weeks just as

[47:50] kind of

[47:53] a refresher sitting the county

[47:55] have appropriated these budgets for

[47:56] the airport

[47:59] $250,000 each

[48:01] for the potential acquisition of 55 acres

[48:05] to the southeast of the airport.

[48:08] that property , as you know

[48:11] is undergoing development at

[48:14] this point

[48:15] in the airport requires the authority

[48:17] and approval

[48:19] of the pre-owners and that's the city county

[48:20] to exercise any

[48:24] eminent domain proceedings along with

[48:26] the state of texas.

[48:29] he jumped into the fire here

[48:32] as it

[48:33] was a very busy time for the airport

[48:35] and I will turn it over to him and

[48:36] he could speak to where they are at.

[48:37] >>

[48:41] I'm the aviation director

[48:43] for the kerrville county airport and

[48:44] here to talk about the

[48:45] resolution we are presenting tonight.

[48:47] we went

[48:52] through the txdot property acquisition

[48:53] guidelines will notify the property

[48:54] owner of the rights and property acquisition.

[48:56] the bill of rights

[48:58] and submitted to them and appraisal

[48:59] as well

[49:02] as a review appraisal for the acquisition

[49:05] of those approximately

[49:08] 55 acres. We did get several offers

[49:09] and

[49:11] went through

[49:12] negotiations for acquisition of the

[49:14] property could not come to terms.

[49:15] we submitted

[49:17] a final offer letter and it went unanswered

[49:20] . So by 14 days it is

[49:23] a rejection letter.

[49:24] we went to the airport board and had

[49:26] two options. Number one was

[49:27] petitioning the county and city of

[49:29] the rights of

[49:31] eminent domain condemnation to take

[49:32] the lead

[49:35] on behalf of the airport board

[49:37] for the eminent domain for the acquisition

[49:38] of those

[49:41] 55 acres and that will take about

[49:42] three

[49:43] years for us to recover our money.

[49:49] that's about 90% that we would ask reimbursement.

[49:50] typically the process will

[49:51] take about 6 to 12 months for the

[49:52] acquisition of the settlement of the

[49:53] acquisition of

[49:56] the property. We did not feel it was

[49:57] the best

[49:59] option for either party so we want

[50:01] to go to the second option which is a

[50:02] petition letter to the city and county,

[50:05] for the

[50:07] texas department of aviation to take

[50:08] over and be the lead agency

[50:10] in acquisition for eminent domain

[50:11] on behalf of the city and airport

[50:12] board

[50:14] and the county

[50:16] and they would then petition the attorney general's

[50:17] office to be representing them in a

[50:19] settlement offer or any court proceedings

[50:20] that

[50:22] may happen so that's what we will

[50:23] present

[50:24] tonight. If we do reach a settlement

[50:26] in the next 12 months, we

[50:29] get a check for 10%

[50:31] and we have a in the budget. Were

[50:32] asking for

[50:34] your authorization to approve the

[50:35] resolution tonight

[50:37] so we can begin those proceedings.

[50:44] >> I am ready to make a motion.

[50:47] >> I got

[50:50] a lot of my answers today.

[50:53] basically starting from scratch

[50:56] thinking about the proposal.

[50:59] with there be anything

[51:02] --almost 55 acres

[51:05] --

[51:06] >> it is vacant

[51:08] as it is. Under the guidelines

[51:11] were required to

[51:13] protect the runway protection zones

[51:16] where supposed to make them construction

[51:17] free areas and substantiated

[51:20] not under grant assurances but land

[51:23] compatibility assurances that we have

[51:24] to

[51:26] abide by.

[51:29] that's the

[51:30] purpose for the acquisition of the

[51:32] property to have the safe zone at

[51:33] the end of that runway

[51:34] on the east side of the airport.

[51:35] >>

[51:36] I will make a motion

[51:38] that we have consideration and approved

[51:41] this.

[51:44] >> all in favor?

[51:47] any opposed??

[51:50] it passes.

[51:54] it's nice to

[51:57] meet you.

[51:58] >>

[52:03] onto appointments.

[52:05] the first one is appointment of city of

[52:09] kerrville delegate for the 2024

[52:10] texas municipal league (tml) annual conference business

[52:18] meeting

[52:21] . In houston.

[52:24] I would like to nominate

[52:33] council member sigerman.

[52:36] I'm asking for

[52:39] a second.

[52:40] >>

[52:41] I second the nomination.

[52:42] >> all in favor?

[52:45] any opposed?

[52:48] that passes.

[52:50] we have some board appointments also.

[52:57] the first is the

[52:58] senior services advisory committee.

[53:02] and who was the liaison for that?

[53:06] >>

[53:09] I had a chance

[53:12] [ inaudible ] discussed it

[53:15] and I want to reappoint

[53:21] and appoint

[53:24] --

[53:25] >>

[53:27] I will second

[53:30] any opposed?

[53:32] it passes. The second appointment

[53:36] is to the zoning board of

[53:39] adjustments. And mayor herring

[53:40] and I will be the liaison for that.

[53:44] I don't feel the need for an executive

[53:45] session

[53:48] on that item.

[53:51] we

[53:54] will nominate

[54:03] amy chaukley

[54:07] and she's happy to serve for another

[54:09] term. I will make that motion that

[54:10] she

[54:12] be reappointed

[54:14] to the zoning board of adjustment

[54:15] .

[54:21] all in favor? Any opposed?

[54:24] it passes.

[54:33] --can someone make a motion.

[54:36] >> I make a motion we go into executive

[54:37] session

[54:39] under section

[54:42] 551.071.

[54:45] >> all in favor

[54:48] ? We are adjourned into

[54:51] executive session

[55:03] .

[56:17] >>

[56:28] [ the council is in executive session. Captioner standing

[57:11] >> okay. It is

[57:14] 7:58. I am

[57:17] gambling

[57:20] out of executive

[57:22] session and back to regular session.

[57:23] do we have anything else to discuss?

[57:25] if not, I will entertain a motion

[57:26] to adjourn.

[57:28] >> I will make a motion to adjourn

[57:29] the city

[57:32] council meeting of september 24

[57:35] at 7:59.

[57:36] >>

[57:38] a second?

[57:39] >> a second.

[57:41] >>

[57:44] okay. We are adjourned.

City Council Meeting - September 24, 2024 - Sep 24th, 2024

Agenda

Transcript