[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.