Post on 11-Jan-2023
City of AbileneCity Council Agenda
Kyle McAlister, Mayor Pro-temShane Price, Council MemberJack Rentz, Council MemberRobert Hanna, City Manager
Anthony Williams,Mayor
Donna Albus, Council MemberWeldon Hurt, Council MemberSteve Savage, Council MemberStanley Smith, City AttorneyRosa Rios, City Secretary
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the City Council of City of Abilene to be heldon Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM at 555 Walnut Street, 2nd Floor CouncilChambers, Abilene, TX, for the purpose of considering the following agenda items.All agenda items are subject to action. The City Council reserves the right to meet ina closed session on any agenda item should the need arise and if applicable pursuantto authorization by Title 5, Chapter 551, of the Texas Government Code.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
1. Councilmember Jack Rentz
PLEDGE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG AND THE TEXAS FLAG
PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS, PROCLAMATIONS ANDANNOUNCEMENTS
2. Employee Service Awards: Brent Irby 20 Police DepartmentIsmael Jaimes 20 Police DepartmentCody Josselet 20 Police DepartmentDavid "Lynn" Beard 20 Police DepartmentThomas "Jody" Peavy III 20 Police DepartmentCraig Jordan 20 Police DepartmentJohn "Jeff" Hogue 20 Police Department
3. Proclamations:Physical Therapy MonthWhite Cane DayPhysician Assistant WeekFire Prevention Week
CONSENT AGENDA
All consent agenda items listed are considered to be routine by the City Council andwill be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these itemsunless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will beremoved from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
4. Minutes: Approving minutes from the Regular Meeting held September 27,2018 (Rosa Rios)
5. Resolution: Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute anInterlocal Agreement between Abilene, Midland and San Angelo to WorkTogether to Address Water Management Strategies to Meet Future Water Needsfor Each City (Tommy O'Brien)
6. Resolution: Authorizing a professional services contract with Alan PlummerAssociates, Inc. for the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan (Rodney Taylor)
7. Resolution: Approving the Purchase of Various IT Network Gear, Servers, andassociated Software (Howdy Wayne Lisenbee).
8. Resolution: Awarding Bid No. CB-1865 - Sale of Property - 140 Mulberry(AKA Old Central Fire Station #1) to TPC Productions, LLC (Howdy WayneLisenbee)
9. Ordinance: (First Reading) OAM-2017-03 Repealing Chapter 23, SubpartC, "Signs and Billboards," of the Code of Ordinances, and Amending Chapter4, Article 2, Division 8, "Sign Regulations," of the Local Development Code,providing a severability clause, declaring a penalty, and setting a public hearingfor October 25, 2018 (Zack Rainbow)
10. Ordinance: (First Reading) Amending Chapter 8, Article VI, Division 6,Section 8-553, "Authority of the Building Official," Code of Ordinances of theCity of Abilene, designating code enforcement officials for administrative searchwarrants, providing a severability clause, declaring a penalty, and calling for apublic hearing on October 25, 2018 (Michael Rice)
REGULAR AGENDA - ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS -RESOLUTIONS
11. Receive Report, Hold Discussion and Provide Direction/Take Action onthe Final Report of the Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit (RobertHanna)
12. Discussion and Direction: Water and Wastewater Utility System Cost ofService and Rate Structure Update Study and Capital ImprovementsDiscussion (Rodney Taylor)
13. Presentation: Abilene Citizen Perceptions Survey (Michael Rice)14. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-26 A request from
JDK Development, agent Enprotec / Hibbs & Todd, to rezone property locatedin 7300 block of Buffalo Gap Road, specifically at northwest corner of WagonWheel Drive and Buffalo Gap Road from Agricultural Open Space/CorridorOverlay (AO/COR) and Agricultural Open Space (AO) to GeneralRetail/Corridor Overlay (GR/COR) for the first 540’, which coincides with thewest line of the corridor overlay and then Neighborhood Retail (NR) for theremaining eastern portion due to its’ close proximity to neighbor
residence (Zack Rainbow)15. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-27 A request from
Hendrick Medical Center, agent Duane Martin, to rezone seven (7) lots fromRS-6 (Residential Single Family) to MU (Medical Use) addressed at 1901,1909, 1917, 1925, 1933, 1941 and 1949 Walnut Street (Zack Rainbow)
16. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-28 A request fromRichard Wright to zone property from RS-6 (Single-Family Residential) to RS-6/H (Single-Family Residential/Historic Overlay) located at 842 SaylesBoulevard on northwest corner of Idlewild Street and Sayles Blvd. (ZackRainbow)
17. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) CUP-2018-04 A requestfrom Chris Baldree and Darlene Robinson for Conditional Use Permit to allow a‘crematorium’ on property zoned Heavy Commercial (HC) located at 118Ruidosa Drive (Zack Rainbow)
18. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) OAM-2018-04 Amendmentsto Section 2.4.2.1 (The Land Use Matrix), Section 2.4.3.3 (All Other Uses WithSpecific Requirements) and Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) of Abilene’sLand Development Code, specifically to include a category of use identified as‘brew pub’ which is separate and distinct from other manufacture of alcoholicbeverages and which will be allowed at all locations allowing a standardrestaurant (and subject to the same conditions) (Zack Rainbow)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There will be no votes or any formal actions taken on subjects presented during publiccomment. The public comment period will only allow members of the public to presentideas and information to city officials and staff.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
19. The City Council of the City of Abilene reserves the right to adjourninto executive session at any time during the course of this meeting todiscuss any of the matters listed below, as authorized by the noted TexasGovernment Code Sections:A. 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney)
1. City of Abilene, Texas v. Aurora Bumgarner; 104th Judicial DistrictCourt,Taylor County, Texas; filed November 17, 2011
2. Chad Carter v. City of Abilene, Texas; Cause No. 10138-D, In the 350thJudicial District Court, Taylor County, Texas, filed June 17, 2014
3. Susan Lewis King & Austin King MD vs Ken Paxton, Attorney Generalof Texas and the City of Abilene, Cause No. D-1-GN-16-001160, filedMarch 16, 2016
4. Ruby Flores and Cory Almanza v. Jesus Verastegui, Alfredo Verastegui,Rosalva Verastegui, and City of Abilene, Cause No. 49368-A, 42ndDistrict Court, Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, filed April 13, 2016
5. Robert Steven Reitz v. City of Abilene, Texas, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00181-BL; In the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, AbileneDivision, filed October 10, 2016
6. City of Abilene and Development Corporation of Abilene v. TexasMunicipal League Governmental Risk Pool, Cause No. 11018-D In the350th Judicial District Court, Taylor County, Texas, filed January 9, 2017
7. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company v. Gallegos MarioPequeno and City of Abilene; Cause No. DC18-47480J11; In the JusticeCourt, Precinct 1, Place 1, Taylor County, Texas, filed May 16, 2018
8. Blanca Cortez v. Board of Building Standards of the City of Abilene;Cause No. 27331-B; In the 104th Judicial District Court, Taylor County,Texas; filed April 6, 2018
9. Brad McGary v. Stan Standridge, Chief of Police, and the City ofAbilene; Cause No. 50115-A, In the 42nd Judicial District Court, TaylorCounty, Texas, filed June 22, 2018
10. Officer Patrick Sumrall and City of Abilene, Case No. 01-18-0000-8650;Appeal of Temporary Suspension to Arbitration; Case No.___________; Appeal of Indefinite Suspension to Arbitration, filedJanuary 31, 2018
11. T.M. (Tracy) Gates v. City of Abilene; Case No. 1:18-cv-00095-C; In theUnited States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division;filed July 3, 2018
B. 551.072 (Deliberations about Real Property)
1. The Cotton Warehouse
C. 551.073 (Deliberations about Gifts and Donations) D. 551.074 (Personnel Matters)
1. City Council may consider appointment, employment, compensation,reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officers oremployees, City Manager, City Attorney, Municipal Court Judge, CitySecretary, and City Board and Commission Members
2. The following Boards and Commissions may be discussed:9-1-1 Emergency Communications District Board of ManagersAbilene Health Facilities Development Corp.Abilene Higher Education Facilities CorporationAbilene Housing AuthorityAbilene Metropolitan Planning Organization BoardAbilene-Taylor County Child Advocacy Center BoardAbilene-Taylor County Events Venue DistrictAbilene-Taylor County Public Health District Advisory BoardAirport Development BoardAnimal Services Advisory BoardBoard of AdjustmentsBoard of Building StandardsCitizen's Advisory Board for People with DisabilitiesCityLink ADA Advisory BoardCivic Abilene, Inc.Civil Service CommissionDevelopment Corporation of Abilene, Inc.Fireman's Retirement and Relief Fund BoardFrontier Texas! Board of DirectorsKeep Abilene Beautiful, Inc.Landmarks CommissionLibrary Advisory BoardMechanical/Plumbing/Electrical & Swimming Pool Board ofAppeals
Mental Health-Mental Retardation Board of TrusteesOffice of Neighborhood Services Advisory BoardParks & Recreation BoardPlanning and Zoning CommissionSenior Citizens Advisory BoardStreet Maintenance Advisory and Appeals BoardTaylor County Appraisal DistrictVisual Arts JuryWest Central Texas Council of GovernmentsWest Central Texas Municipal Water DistrictTax Increment Reinvestment Zone Board
E. 551.076 (Deliberations about Security Devices) F. 551.087 (Business Prospect/Economic Development)
1. Hotel Proposals
RECONVENE
REGULAR AGENDA
20. Resolution: Nominating an individual to fill the existing vacancy on the Boardof Directors of the Jones County Appraisal District (Rosa Rios)
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Abilene will provide forreasonable accommodations for persons attending City Council meetings. To better serveyou, requests should be received 48 hours prior to the meetings. Please call 325-676-6208.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the above meeting notice was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall ofthe City of Abilene, Texas, on the 5th day of October 2018, at 3:50 p.m. _____________________________Rosa Rios, TRMCCity Secretary
TO: Honorable Mayor Williams and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rosa Rios, City Secretary
SUBJECT: Minutes: Approving minutes from the Regular Meeting held September 27, 2018 (RosaRios)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
City Council is asked to approve the above-noted minutes.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
None.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the item.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 4, Page 1 of 1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 27, 2018 at 4:30 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
The City Council of the City of Abilene, Texas met in Regular Session on September 27, 2018 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 555 Walnut St. Mayor Anthony Williams was present and presiding with Mayor Pro-tem Kyle McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Steve Savage and Councilmembers Shane Price, Jack Rentz, Donna Albus, and Weldon Hurt. Also present were Assistant City Manager Michael Rice, City Attorney Stanley Smith, City Secretary Rosa Rios, and various members of the City staff. City Manager Robert Hanna was absent.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Williams called the meeting to order and recessed into Executive Session at 4:30 p.m. pursuant to the following of the Open Meetings Act, with the following issues discussed during the closed session, as listed under the noted agenda item:
26.B 551.072 (Deliberations about Real Property) 1. Old Central Fire Station
26.D 551.074 (Personnel Matters) 1. Performance Evaluation City Secretary Rosa Rios
The executive session ended at 5:00 p.m. after which the City Council recessed and reconvened to Open Session at 5:30 p.m., as noted on the posted agenda. Mayor Williams reported no votes or action were taken in executive session. Councilmember Albus delivered the invocation. Araiya Jeffers, 5th grader at Allie Ward Elementary School, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flags of the United States of America and the State of Texas.
PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
• None
CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of items 3-19. Items pulled for individual consideration were as follows:
• Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage: Items 4, 5, and 19 • Citizen David Swart: Item 12
The following conflict was announced:
• Mayor Williams: Item 16 Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage moved to approve the consent agenda, now consisting of items 3, 6-11, and 13-18. Councilmember Hurt seconded the motion; motion carried.
Regular City Council Meeting September 27, 2018
2
Items 3, 6-11, and 13-15, 17, and 18: AYES (7): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and Councilmembers Price,
Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (0): None Item 16: AYES (6): Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and
Hurt NAYS (0): None ABSTENTION (1): Mayor Williams
3. Minutes: Approval of the minutes from the Special Called Meeting held September 6, 2018 and Regular
Meeting held September 13, 2018 6. Resolution: Approving the Purchase of Laptop Computers for the Abilene Public Library
[ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 153-2018]
7. Resolution: Authorizing a Single-Family Rehabilitation Project with FY 2017/2018 HOME Funds [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 154-2018]
8. Resolution: Awarding Bids for Purchase of Bulk Chemicals to be Used by Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants in Fiscal Year 2019 [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 155-2018]
9. Resolution: Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Contract for the Baylor Drive Lift Station Improvements Project [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 156-2018]
10. Resolution: Awarding Bid for Purchase of Filter Media for Production of Potable Water [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 157-2018]
11. Resolution: Approving a Negotiated Settlement Between the Atmos Cities Steering Committee (ACSC) and Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 158-2018]
13. Resolution: Approving and Ratifying the 2018-2019 Meet and Confer Agreement between the City of
Abilene and Abilene Police Officers' Association [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 160-2018]
14. Resolution: Authorizing Joint Application with Taylor County Sheriff's Office for the 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 161-2018]
15. Ordinance: (First Reading) Z-2018-26 A request from JDK Development, agent Enprotec / Hibbs & Todd, to rezone property located in 7300 block of Buffalo Gap Road, specifically at northwest corner of Wagon Wheel Drive and Buffalo Gap Road from Agricultural Open Space/Corridor Overlay (AO/COR) and Agricultural Open Space (AO) to General Retail/Corridor Overlay (GR/COR) for the first 540’, which coincides with the west line of the corridor overlay and then Neighborhood Retail (NR) for the remaining eastern portion due to its close proximity to neighbor residence; and setting a public hearing for October 9, 2018
Regular City Council Meeting September 27, 2018
3
16. Ordinance: (First Reading) Z-2018-27 A request from Hendrick Medical Center, agent Duane Martin, to
rezone seven (7) lots from RS-6 (Residential Single Family) to MU (Medical Use) addressed at 1901, 1909, 1917, 1925, 1933, 1941 and 1949 Walnut Street; and setting a public hearing for October 9, 2018
17. Ordinance: (First Reading) Z-2018-28 A request from Richard Wright to zone property from RS-6 (Single-
Family Residential) to RS-6/H (Single-Family Residential/Historic Overlay) located at 842 Sayles Boulevard on northwest corner of Idlewild Street and Sayles Blvd; and setting a public hearing for October 9, 2018
18. Ordinance: (First Reading) CUP-2018-04 A request from Chris Baldree and Darlene Robinson for
Conditional Use Permit to allow a ‘crematorium’ on property zoned Heavy Commercial (HC) located at 118 Ruidosa Drive; and setting a public hearing for October 9, 2018
ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a 2018 Amendment to the Lease Agreement for Maxwell
Municipal Golf Course with West Texas Golf Systems, LLC [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 151-2018] The item was pulled at the request of Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage Since the original 1994 agreement, set to expire September 30, 2019, there has been a change in ownership of West Texas Golf Systems, LLC. West Texas Golf Systems, LLC has requested an extension of the end date of the lease to September 30, 2024, with automatic yearly extensions thereafter, and the ability to modify green fees and other fees of the golf course up to 10% annually without need of City Council approval. Having pulled the item, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage expressed his position that fee increases should be presented as part of the budget process and reported on complaints about overhanging trees. Staff is to research the issue of overhanging trees and report back. Additional discussion centered on facility/ground maintenance being the responsibility of the operator, City’s ownership of the property and equipment being originally paid for from Capital Improvement funds in the amount of $85,000, as well as possibly having a distinction of the revenue being generated and how those funds are spent (facilities or operator salaries). If a large capital improvement is desired, the operator has the ability to present a funding request to the City Council who shall decide whether or not to fund that request. Mayor Pro-tem McAlister moved to approve the item as presented. Councilmember Hurt seconded the motion; motion carried. AYES (5): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, and Councilmembers Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (2): Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage and Councilmember Price
5. Resolution: Authorizing the City Manager to execute two contracts with Vortex USA Inc. through the City's
NPP contract #VQ10302 for the renovation of Nelson Splash Pad at Grover Nelson Park [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 152-2018] The item was pulled at the request of Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage Having pulled the item, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage voiced his opposition to the proposed expense. Staff outlined the existing damage to the Nelson Splash Pad at Grover Nelson Park.
Regular City Council Meeting September 27, 2018
4
Councilmember Price moved to approve the item as presented. Councilmember Rentz seconded the motion; motion carried. AYES (6): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, and Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (1): Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage
12. Resolution: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Physio-Control, Inc. for the purchase of two (2) Physio-Control LifePak 15 Cardiac Monitors [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 159-2018] The item was pulled at the request of Citizen David Swart Having pulled the item, Citizen David Swart inquired if the cardiac units were AED units similar to those at the convention center. Staff clarified the monitors do have AED function. Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage moved to approve the item as presented. Mayor Pro-tem McAlister seconded the motion; motion carried. AYES (7): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and
Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (0): None
19. Ordinance: (First Reading) OAM-2018-04 Amendments to Section 2.4.2.1 (The Land Use Matrix), Section 2.4.3.3 (All Other Uses With Specific Requirements) and Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) of Abilene’s Land Development Code, specifically to include a category of use identified as ‘brew pub’ which is separate and distinct from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages and which will be allowed at all locations (and subject to same conditions) as those allowing a standard restaurant The item was pulled at the request of Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage Adoption of the item would include a category of use identified as ‘brewpub’ which is separate and distinct from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages and which will be allowed at all locations (and subject to same conditions) as those allowing a standard restaurant. At Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage’s inquiry, staff clarified there was no additional fee for the designation as the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission allows it. At its October 9, 2018 meeting, City Council will consider final adoption of the item. Staff was asked to discuss (1) neighborhood retail and mixed use and (2) possibly having conditional use at that time. Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage moved to approve the item as presented. Mayor Pro-tem McAlister seconded the motion; motion carried. AYES (7): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and
Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (0): None
REGULAR AGENDA
20. Resolution: Approving the purchase of one (1) Pierce Impel Aerial Ladder Truck from Siddons-Martin
Emergency Group [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 162-2018] Cande Flores, Fire Chief, presented the item. Adoption of the item would authorize the purchase of one (1) aerial ladder truck. The replacement plan was created to comply with recommendations outlined in NFPA Standard 1901 and to support the Class 1 Public Protection Classification (PPC) by the Insurance Service Office (ISO). Staff clarified the clean cab concept.
Regular City Council Meeting September 27, 2018
5
Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage moved to approve the item as presented. Councilmember Albus seconded the motion; motion carried.
AYES (7): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and
Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (0): None Having registered to speak on the item, Mayor Williams called on the following individual to address the city council:
• David Swart – spoke on the makeup of the truck and its radio system
21. Resolution: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Resolution for Application for a Parks and Wildlife Department Grant (TPWD) and Assurance of Eligibility for Publicly Owned Land [NOT CONSIDERED; ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 163-2018] Mayor Williams informed the public the item had been pulled from consideration in advance of the meeting and would therefore not be considered.
22. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-24 A request from Chad Deaver to rezone property from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Agricultural Open Space (AO) located in the 4700 block of FM 18 [NOT APPROVED; ASSIGNED ORDINANCE NO. 55-2018] Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services, presented the item. Adoption of the item would rezone a parcel of land from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Agricultural Open Space (AO). Discussion centered on a annexation study found by staff, which was not binding to previous or future property owners within the area encompassed within the study; and while the study would theoretically be applicable to the properties, they were not as there were no signed agreements. City Attorney Smith clarified a super-majority vote (6 of the 7 councilmembers voting in favor) was required for adoption of the item as over 20% of the property owners in the affected area were in opposition to the request. Mayor Williams opened the public hearing. The following addressed the city council:
• Chad Deaver (applicant) – spoke in favor of the item; handouts were distributed to the City Council outlining citizen support of his request
• Matt Heike – spoke on the parcel of property, owned by Bontke Brothers who were no longer interested and are selling the property; property needs to revert to AO
• Bobby Robinson – spoke on being sympathetic to the applicant but not happy about property owners being told what they can and cannot do with/in their property
• Kenneth Bontke – spoke on his property currently not being sold and in opposition to the item With no other speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Price moved to approve the item the requested zone change from HI to AO. Councilmember Hurt seconded the motion; motion failed.
AYES (3): Mayor Williams and Councilmembers Price and Hurt NAYS (4): Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and Councilmembers Rentz and Albus
Because of a super-majority vote being required (6 of 7 council members voting in favor) to adopt the item, the item was not approved.
Regular City Council Meeting September 27, 2018
6
23. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-23 A request from Robert Nobles, agent Jacob &
Martin, to rezone property from Residential Multi-Family (MF) to Planned Development (PD) District located at northeast end of Kala Drive [ASSIGNED ORDINANCE NO. 56-2018] Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services, presented the item. Adoption of the item would rezone an undeveloped parcel from Residential Multi-Family (MF) to Planned Development (PD) District, allowing a modified form of townhouse appearing as a building with just two (2) attached dwelling units sharing a common wall on separate lots. Staff clarified the 10 ft. separation between the townhomes are allowed in the Fire Code. Parking requirements are two spaces per home and would be reviewed at time of the building permit. At the time the 600 ft. (or 25 units) is reached, a secondary point of ingress/egress has to be available for access to/from the development. Mayor Williams opened the public hearing. The following addressed the city council:
• Clayton Farrow – representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the item; confirmed the desired distance between structures is 14 ft.
With no other speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed.
Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage moved to approve the item as presented. Councilmember Price seconded the motion; motion carried. AYES (7): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and
Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (0): None
24. Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Amending Chapter 18, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Article
XIII, "Schedules," Section 18-289, "One-way streets at all times," of the Abilene Municipal code to provide one-way only traffic on Lindbergh Dr. and a portion of Loop 322 East Frontage Rd., providing a severability clause, declaring a penalty [ASSIGNED ORDINANCE NO. 57-2018] Greg McCaffery, Director of Public Works, presented this item. Adoption of the item would designate Lindbergh Dr. from Hwy 36 south to Navajo Circle as One-Way only, and will also designate Loop 322 East Frontage Rd from Hwy 36 to where it dead ends to the south as One-Way only north. Staff clarified discrepancies existing in the City Code for roadways in the Airport property would be presented to City Council in the near future. Mayor Williams opened the public hearing; and with no speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Hurt moved to approve the item as presented. Councilmember Price seconded the motion; motion carried. AYES (7): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and
Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (0): None
Regular City Council Meeting September 27, 2018
7
25. Resolution: Approving Settlement with the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, Cause
No. 11018-D, In the 350th Judicial District Court, Taylor County, Texas [ASSIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 164-2018] Earlier in the meeting, under Section 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney) of the Open Meetings Act, the item was discussed during the Executive Session, which started at 4:30 p.m. and ended at 5:00 p.m. No votes or actions were taken at that time. Stanley Smith, City Attorney, presented the item. Adoption of the item authorizes the city manager to execute any documents necessary to effectuate the settlement agreement, payment of attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and pro rata distribution of funds. Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage moved to approve the item as presented. Councilmember Hurt seconded the motion; motion carried. AYES (7): Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro-tem McAlister, Deputy Mayor Pro-tem Savage, and
Councilmembers Price, Rentz, Albus, and Hurt NAYS (0): None
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Williams opened the public comment period; and with no speakers coming forward, the public comment period was closed.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m. ______________________________ ______________________________ Rosa Rios, TRMC Anthony Williams City Secretary Mayor Minutes approved on: ______________________________
TO: Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Tommy O’Brien, Director of Water Resource Planning
SUBJECT:
Resolution: Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an InterlocalAgreement between Abilene, Midland and San Angelo to Work Together to AddressWater Management Strategies to Meet Future Water Needs for Each City (TommyO'Brien)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The West Texas Water Partnership (Partnership) is a coalition of the cities of Abilene, Midland and SanAngelo (collectively the “Cities”) working together to evaluate strategies for meeting future water supplies. The Cities recognize that an adequate water supply is essential to their future and the future of West Texas.The Cities have agreed that it is prudent to collectively, rather than individually, look for ways to partner withother cities in West Texas to ensure their future and to reduce costs of water resource development. In April, 2011 the Cities entered into an Interlocal Agreement where the Cities agreed that they would worktogether to develop regional water management strategies that would provide for the long term water needs ofthe Cities and region. The Cities have long sought dependable, secure water resources for each city, and alsorecognize the need to explore options that address regional concerns. In general, the 2011 InterlocalAgreement allows the Cities to jointly evaluate and develop long term water management strategies for futurewater supplies. The Partnership has experienced a recent change in its legal counsel. When the 2011 Interlocal Agreement wasexecuted, the Cities chose to engage the law firm of Lloyd, Gosselink, Rochelle and Townsend (LG) as legalcounsel for the Partnership. Since 2011 and until recently, Martin Rochelle and Jason Hill have workedtogether as the LG attorneys providing legal counsel for the Partnership. Recently, Mr. Rochelle retired fromthe employment of LG; and Mr. Hill left the employment of LG and started his own law firm (JT Hill &Company). With these changes in attorneys, the Partnership decided it is prudent to maintain Mr. Hill as itslegal counsel, which provides consistency and continuity to the Partnership. The Partnership believes it is prudent to prepare a new Interlocal Agreement to reflect the change to engagingMr. Hill to provide legal services. The proposed 2018 Interlocal Agreement addresses the change in legalrepresentation and allows the Cities to continue to work together to evaluate water management strategies forthe long term water needs of the Cities. Mr. Hill will engage the services of professional consultants, asnecessary, to assist him in providing advice to the Partnership on legal issues related to water rights, watermanagement strategies, regional and state water planning and other water related issues. Such consultantscould include Enprotec/Hibbs and Todd for providing continued engineering services, and HillCo Partners forproviding continued legislative services.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 1 of 13
Representatives of Midland and San Angelo will discuss the issue of entering into the proposed 2018 InterlocalAgreement with their respective City Councils at regularly scheduled meetings.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
The 2018 Interlocal Agreement will have an indirect fiscal impact on the City of Abilene. The 2018 InterlocalAgreement will acknowledge that there will be costs for the work necessary to evaluate the water managementstrategies. The Cities have conceptually agreed that the costs of such work will be shared equally between thethree Cities. Such future expenses will be funded from the Water Department Water and Sewer Fund.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution LetterProposed Agreement Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 2 of 13
RESOLUTION NO. ________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND
SAN ANGELO, TEXAS TO CONTINUE WORKING TOGETHER TO ADDRESS
WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO MEET FUTURE WATER NEEDS FOR
EACH CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Abilene, Texas (the “City”), entered into an Interlocal Agreement
dated April 9, 2011 between the City of Abilene (“Abilene”), the City of Midland (“Midland”),
and the City of San Angelo (“San Angelo”), Texas authorizing the three cities (the “Cities”) to
work together to evaluate and develop water management strategies to provide for the short-term
and long-term water needs of their customers and residents; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have determined they continue to have common issues related to
securing future water supplies; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have determined there is a willingness and benefit to continue to
work together to develop water management strategies to address future water needs; and
WHEREAS, the Cities propose to engage the law firm of JT Hill & Co. (JTHC) to serve
as the consulting law firm for legal services required pursuant to the 2018 Interlocal Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, JT Hill & Co. will engage the services of other professional consultants,
such as engineering and legislative services, as necessary to evaluate the viability of long-term
water management strategies; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to formally express its continued interest in the future sharing
of water supplies among the Cities and desires to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute, on behalf of the City, the 2018 Interlocal Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ABILENE, TEXAS:
1. The City Council hereby finds that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into
the 2018 Interlocal Agreement between the cities of Abilene, Midland, and San
Angelo in order to memorialize its continued interest in the future sharing of
existing and to-be-developed water supplies in order to most efficiently utilize
water throughout the region.
2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute the 2018
Interlocal Agreement.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 3 of 13
3. The City Council authorizes the City and its representatives to continue to work
with the cities of Midland and San Angelo in the analysis, evaluation, and
development of long-term cooperative water management strategies contemplated
by the 2018 Interlocal Agreement.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018.
ATTEST:
_________________________________ _________________________________
ROSA RIOS, CITY SECRETARY ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR
APPROVED:
_________________________________
STANLEY SMITH, CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 4 of 13
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS CITIES OF ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND SAN ANGELO Page 1 of 6
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS CITIES OF
ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND SAN ANGELO
This Agreement is made under the Interlocal Cooperation Act this 5th day of June, 2018, between the
City of Abilene (“Abilene”), the City of Midland (“Midland”), and the City of San Angelo (“San
Angelo”) (each City being a “Party” and collectively referred to as “Parties”), all municipalities being
incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas. This Agreement shall replace any prior written or
verbal agreements between the parties.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Abilene owns certain water rights in the Brazos River Basin and is a member of
the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group; and
WHEREAS, Midland and San Angelo both own certain water rights in the Colorado River
Basin and are both members of the Region F Regional Water Planning Group; and
WHEREAS, the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group and the Region F Regional Water
Planning Group project a future deficit in water supplies for each of the Parties; and
WHEREAS, the Parties each have a contractual right to water supplies from the O.H. Ivie
Reservoir in the Colorado River Basin; and
WHEREAS, Abilene is, in part, pursuing a water rights application for the permitting and
development of the Cedar Ridge Reservoir in the Brazos River Basin in order to address future water
needs; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have been individually evaluating various water management
strategies to address their future water needs; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined they have common issues related to securing water
supplies; and
WHEREAS, there is a willingness amongst the Parties to work together to resolve water
needs; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined there is a benefit to working together to develop
water management strategies to address water needs.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 5 of 13
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS CITIES OF ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND SAN ANGELO Page 2 of 6
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties AGREE as follows:
I. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT AND CONSIDERATION
It is the desire of the Parties to develop water management strategies to provide for the water needs
of their customers and residents. The Parties desire to cooperate in the evaluation, selection, and
development of water management strategies for regional water supplies. In consideration of the
agreement to jointly evaluate, select, and develop water management strategies for regional water
supplies, the Parties desire to participate in this endeavor as follows: Any payments made for the
performance of governmental functions or services under this Agreement shall be made from current
revenues available to the paying Party.
II. TERM
This Agreement is effective beginning June 5, 2018, and it shall continue until termination by the
Parties.
III. PARTY RESPONSIBILITIES
Each Party agrees that it will:
a. work with the other Parties to develop and evaluate regional water needs and
management strategies;
b. consider using its available water resources to help meet each Party’s water needs;
c. coordinate with the Colorado River Municipal Water District, as appropriate, to
evaluate water supplies available from O.H. Ivie Reservoir;
d. provide current information in a timely manner to consulting engineers, attorneys, and
other Parties, as requested; and
e. make any payments for the performance of governmental functions or services under
this Agreement from current revenues available to the paying Party.
IV. CONSULTANTS
1. The Parties agree that the cost for all legal, engineering, or other professional services related
to this Agreement will be equally shared amongst the Parties.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 6 of 13
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS CITIES OF ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND SAN ANGELO Page 3 of 6
2. San Angelo will utilize its existing professional services contract with JT Hill & Co. (“JTHC”)
to serve as the consulting law firm for legal services required pursuant to this Agreement. These
services include, but are not limited to, JTHC hiring necessary consultants; providing advice on legal
issues related to water rights, water management strategies, regional and state water planning, and
other water related legal issues. Each Party agrees that when it is necessary to procure professional
services for purposes of its participation under this Agreement, it will do so in accordance with
applicable procurement laws of the state of Texas.
3. JTHC will engage Enprotec/Hibbs & Todd, Inc. (“eHT”) to serve as the consulting engineer
to evaluate and design regional options for the future water supplies for the Parties.
4. JTHC will engage HillCo Partners on terms agreed to by the Parties to perform legislative
services agreed by the Parties to be necessary under this Agreement.
5. Upon presentation to authorized representatives of Midland and Abilene of a statement setting
forth in reasonable detail the amount, purpose, and evidence of payment of costs related to this
Agreement, San Angelo shall be entitled to receive as reimbursement, and Midland and Abilene agree
to pay to San Angelo, Midland’s and Abilene’s respective proportionate share of such costs incurred
and paid by San Angelo.
6. The Parties hereby ratify, confirm, approve, and adopt the actions taken by San Angelo in the
selection and engagement of JTHC to provide legal services associated with this Agreement. The
Parties agree that any additional contracts or agreements for consulting services associated with this
Agreement and not referenced herein shall be subject to written approval by the Parties.
V. CONFIDENTIALITY AND COMMUNICATIONS
1. The Parties agree that the information that will be shared pursuant to this Agreement is
confidential by nature and will be held confidential to the extent allowed by law. The Parties and their
respective agents, employees, consultants, and representatives will at all times use their best efforts to
maintain the confidentiality of all documents, professional work product, scientific, engineering,
environmental, and legal reports, studies, investigations, memoranda, and opinions related to this
Agreement. Any public communication about confidential information related to water management
strategies related to this Agreement will be done in a manner that is agreed to jointly by the Parties to
maintain consistency in communication. A Party who receives a request for information related to this
Agreement from a member of the public or the media may forward the request to JTHC for JTHC to
process on behalf of the Party in accordance with the Texas Public Information Act.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 7 of 13
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS CITIES OF ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND SAN ANGELO Page 4 of 6
2. Any Party providing to any person or entity non-confidential information related to the water
management strategies developed under this Agreement shall make the other Parties aware of what
information was shared and provide the other Parties copies of any media prepared or presented.
VI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This document constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties.
VII. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Agreement are severable, and if for any reason any one or more of the
provisions shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement and this
Agreement shall remain in effect and be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision
had never been contained in the Agreement.
VIII. ADDRESSES AND NOTICE
Any written communications related to the Agreement shall, until changed in writing to all Parties,
be as follows:
If to the City of Abilene:
City of Abilene Attn: City Manager P.O. Box 60 Abilene, Texas 79604 If to the City of San Angelo:
City of San Angelo Attn: City Manager 72 West College Avenue San Angelo, Texas 76903
If to the City of Midland:
City of Midland Attn: City Manager
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 8 of 13
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS CITIES OF ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND SAN ANGELO Page 5 of 6
300 North Loraine Midland, Texas 79701
IX. MODIFICATION
This Agreement shall be subject to change, modification, or amendment only by the mutual written
consent of all of the Parties.
X. ASSIGNABILITY
This Agreement shall bind the Parties and their legal successors but shall otherwise not be assignable by the Parties.
XI. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by the Constitution and the law of the State of Texas.
XII. TERMINATION
This Agreement may be terminated with 30-day written notification to the remaining Parties. The
terminating Party shall remain responsible for all incurred costs at the time of termination. The
Confidentiality requirements of this Agreement survive termination by any Party.
XIII. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed original.
Each of the counterparts taken together constitute one executed agreement. Digitally transmitted
signatures are sufficient to bind each of the Parties and will in all respects be treated as the legal
equivalent of an original signature.
[This portion of the page intentionally left blank]
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 9 of 13
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEXAS CITIES OF ABILENE, MIDLAND, AND SAN ANGELO Page 6 of 6
EXECUTED to be effective June 5, 2018.
CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS
By: _________________________ Robert Hanna City Manager
CITY OF MIDLAND, TEXAS
By: _________________________ Courtney Sharp City Manager
CITY OF SAN ANGELO, TEXAS
By: _________________________ Daniel Valenzuela City Manager
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 10 of 13
2018 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN ABILENE, MIDLAND AND SAN
ANGELO
October 9, 2018
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 11 of 13
2
West Texas Water Partnership
• Includes the cities of Abilene, Midland and San Angelo
• Partner to evaluate long-term water supply needs in West Texas
• Reduce costs of water resource development
• Identify methods of transporting water throughout West Texas
• Ensure future water supplies for our region
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 12 of 13
TO: Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Rodney Taylor, Director of Water Utilities
SUBJECT: Resolution: Authorizing a professional services contract with Alan PlummerAssociates, Inc. for the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan (Rodney Taylor)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
Staff is requesting that the Abilene City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a professional servicescontract with Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. (APAI) in an amount not to exceed $441,407.00 for the WaterTreatment Plant Master Plan. APAI completed the prior Water Treatment Plant Master Plan for the City ofAbilene in 2004, and this firm is very well qualified to conduct this master planning study.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
APAI will be subcontracting with Enprotec/Hibbs & Todd, Inc. as a team member for this project. This teamhas worked together on several of the Drought Response Strategy projects. The City of Abilene owns and operates raw water production facilities including pump stations and pipelines,and water treatment facilities including the Northeast, Grimes, and Hargesheimer Water Treatment Plants. Manypieces of the raw water production facilities and many key components of the water treatment plants are agedand in need of evaluation to determine upgrade, repair, or replacement needs in order to maintain theCity's assets in good condition to assure adequate performance, reliability and operability into the future. It isan ongoing challenge to maintain compliance with ever more stringent water quality standards, and to meet theexpectations of our customers, as standards and expectations change, and equipment ages and wears out. It isnow time for an updated Water Treatment Plant Master Plan for evaluating infrastructure age, condition, andperformance, addressing capacity, reliability, redundancy, and water quality issues, and developing a plan forstrategically implementing improvements over the master planning period.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this professional services contract is included in the 2019 Annual Operating Budget of the WaterUtilities Department.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Abilene City Council approve the professional services contract with Alan PlummerAssociates, Inc. for the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $441,407.00as described above.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 6, Page 1 of 30
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Resolution LetterContract Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Backup MaterialPresentation Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 6, Page 2 of 30
RESOLUTION NO. ________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS,
AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ALAN PLUMMER
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City of Abilene (City) owns and operates raw water pump stations and pipelines, and the Northeast, Grimes, and Hargesheimer Water Treatment Plants; and
WHEREAS, many pieces of the infrastructure of the existing raw water production facilities and key components of the water treatment plants are aged and in need of evaluation to determine upgrade, repair, or replacement needs in order to maintain those assets to assure adequate performance, reliability and operability into the future; and
WHEREAS, it is an ongoing challenge to maintain compliance with ever more stringent
water quality standards, and to meet the expectations of our customers, as equipment ages and wears out; and
WHEREAS, an updated Water Treatment Plant Master Plan is needed to evaluate infrastructure age, condition, and performance, to address capacity, reliability, redundancy, and water quality, and to develop a plan for strategically implementing improvements over time; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the Abilene City Council authorize a professional services contract with Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. for the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $441,407.00; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ABILENE, TEXAS:
That the City Manager is authorized to execute a professional services contract with Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. for the Water Treatment Plant Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $441,407.00.
ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2018.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Rosa Rios, City Secretary Anthony Williams, Mayor
APPROVED:
_____________________________ Stanley E. Smith, City Attorney
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 6, Page 3 of 30
Authorize a Professional Services Contract with Alan Plummer Associates Inc. for the
Water Treatment Plant Master Plan.
October 9, 2018
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 6, Page 27 of 30
Water Treatment Plant Master Plan
• Professional Services Contract with Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
• Contract amount not to exceed $441,407.00
• Evaluation of condition, performance, and utilization of raw water pump stations and pipelines, water treatment processes and facilities, and WTP pump stations.
• Consider treated water quality for both meeting and exceeding regulatory compliance and for meeting customer expectations.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 6, Page 28 of 30
Water Treatment Plant Master Plan
• Develop a path forward for addressing the age and condition of the Grimes Water Treatment Plant.
• Address water treatment reliability and redundancy using a utility system-wide approach.
• Providing options for addressing key issues.
• Developing a Master Plan document that includes a recommended prioritized project list, schedules for implementation, and cost estimates for CIP budgeting.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 6, Page 29 of 30
Authorize a Professional Services Contract with Alan Plummer Associates Inc. for the
Water Treatment Plant Master Plan.
QUESTIONS?
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 6, Page 30 of 30
TO: Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Howdy Wayne Lisenbee, Director of Facilities & Capital Improvements
SUBJECT: Resolution: Approving the Purchase of Various IT Network Gear, Servers, andassociated Software (Howdy Wayne Lisenbee).
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The City is currently constructing a new facility to house multiple municipal functions within the former Kmartlocated on S 1st. The construction project includes all of the associated costs associated with renovations anddevelopment of the server rooms and IT closets, to include cables, power, and HVAC needs for thosespaces. However, staff is self-performing the acquisition and installation of the network and server equipmentand racks. Additionally, IT staff is working with the local consulting firm Datroo to replace an aging server infrastructureat City Hall. There is a significant number of on-premise servers that are beyond their useful life, so staff ismoving to a “virtual” server concept. This allows for a reduced number of devices on site and reduces thefootprint within server rooms.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Staff is requesting approval of three purchases, each of them over the $50,000 threshold. (Solid IT Networks,Dell Inc., CDW-G) These three purchases are all done through the State of Texas Department of InformationServices (DIR) contract. The total cost of the purchases for which staff is seeking approval is $210,958.26. For the sake of full transparency, there are another four purchases being made by staff that fall under the$50,000 threshold. Three purchases are for SonicWall Firewall hardware, Fiber Optics hardware, and patchcables at a total cost of $32,917.18. Staff is also working on the specifications for the necessary networkcabinets that will be installed in the main server room. It is expected that these cabinets will be less than$10,000.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
The total purchase price for the equipment and software included in this request is $210,958.26 and will comefrom the City’s Tech Fund budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7, Page 1 of 19
Staff recommends approval of various IT network gear, servers, and associated software to support the Kmartremodel project and City Hall server replacements in the amount of $210,958.26.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution LetterPurchase Summary Backup MaterialEquipment Quotes Backup MaterialPowerPoint Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7, Page 2 of 19
RESOLUTION ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS I.T. NETWORK GEAR, SERVERS, AND SOFTWARE FOR THE KMART REMODEL PROJECT AND CITY HALL SERVER REPLACEMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City is currently under construction to remodel the former Kmart building on South 1st to house multiple municipal operations, and the project requires substantial investment in IT network infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City is replacing numerous aged servers at City Hall; WHEREAS, City staff has arranged a series of purchases from various vendors from the State of Texas Department of Information Services (DIR) contract: Solid IT Networks $93,987.95 Dell, Inc. $52,765.31 CDW-G $64,205.00 $210,958.26 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS: Part 1: The City Manager is hereby authorized to purchase the various IT network gear, servers, and software
for the Kmart Remodel Project and the City Hall Server Replacement Project in the amount of $210,958.26. Part 2: This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after passage. ADOPTED and approved by the City Council on the 9th of October, 2018.
ATTEST:
Rosa Rios, TRMC Anthony Williams
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED:
Stanley Smith,
City Attorney
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7, Page 3 of 19
City of Abilene
Tech Services
IT Network & Server Purchase
Kmart Purchase
Vendor Equipment Cost
Solid IT Networks Ruckus & ICX Network Gear 93,987.95$
Sub-Total 93,987.95$
City Hall Server Room
Vendor Equipment Cost
Dell Inc. VMWare Software 19,346.51$
Dell Inc. PowerEdge Servers 33,418.80$
CDW-G Nimble Storage Gear 64,205.00$
Sub-Total 116,970.31$
Total 210,958.26$
10/09/2018
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7, Page 4 of 19
Purchase of Various IT Network Gear, Servers, and
SoftwareOctober 9, 2018
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7, Page 18 of 19
Kmart Remodel Project
Network Gear $93,987.95
City Hall Server Replacement Project
VMWare Software $19,346.51
Server Hardware $33,418.80
Nimble Storage Gear $64,205.00
Total Purchase: $210,958.26
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7, Page 19 of 19
TO: Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Howdy Wayne Lisenbee, Director of Facilities & Capital Improvements
SUBJECT: Resolution: Awarding Bid No. CB-1865 - Sale of Property - 140 Mulberry (AKA OldCentral Fire Station #1) to TPC Productions, LLC (Howdy Wayne Lisenbee)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
Pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Section 272.001, the City placed the following parcel of land forsale by giving public notice by advertisement in the Abilene Reporter-News on September 5, 2018 andSeptember 9, 2018, and accepting sealed bids: Lot 101-102, Block 154, Being a Re-Plat of Lots 1 To 7, Block 154, Original Town, City of Abilene,Taylor County, Texas, Property ID No. 24398, Located At 140 Mulberry (AKA Old Central Fire Station#1) Sealed bids were received and opened on September 18, 2018; four bids were received.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council award the bid to the high bidder, TPC Productions, LLC, for thepurchase price of $150,005.00 plus advertising costs of $737.20, for a total purchase price of $150,742.20.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution LetterBid Tabulation Sheet Backup Material
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8, Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION NO.__________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS, AWARDING
BID TO TPC PRODUCTIONS, LLC, ABILENE, TEXAS
WHEREAS, the City of Abilene duly advertised and gave such notice, as required by law, for bids for the sale of Lot 101-102, Block 154, Being a Re-Plat of Lots 1 To 7, Block 154, Original Town, City of Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, Property ID No. 24398, Located At 140 Mulberry (AKA Old Central Fire Station #1); and
WHEREAS, the following bids were received and opened on September 18, 2018: TPC Productions, LLC, Abilene, TX $150,005.00 Leverets Office Machines, Abilene, TX $136,000.00 All Copy, LLC, Abilene, TX $101,095.00 W R Pittman, Abilene, TX $ 95,000.00 WHEREAS, TPC Productions, LLC., Abilene, Texas submitted the high bid in the amount
of $150,005.00, staff recommends awarding the bid to the high bidder, TPC Productions, LLC., Abilene, Texas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ABILENE, TEXAS
PART 1: That the City Council approves this bid in the amount of $150,005.00, to
include the advertising cost of $737.20 for a total amount of $150,742.20.
PART 2: That this Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after passage.
ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2018.
ATTEST:
_________________________________ ______________________________ Rosa Rios, City Secretary Anthony Williams, Mayor APPROVED: ______________________________
Stanley Smith, City Attorney
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8, Page 3 of 6
CITY OF ABILENE
PURCHASING DIVISION
TABULATION OF BIDS
PAGE
1 OF 1
DEPARTMENT: LAND
BID NO.: CB-1865
TIME OF OPENING: 11:00 A.M.
DATE OF OPENING: SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
TPC PRODUCTIONS, LLC
ABILENE, TX
LEVRETS OFFICE
MACHINES INC.
ABILENE, TX
ALL COPY LLC
ABILENE, TX
W R PITTMAN
ABILENE, TX
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENSION
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENSION
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENSION
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENSION
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENSION
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENSION
SALE OF PROPERTY – OLD CENTRAL FIRE
#1 *150,005.00 136,000.00 101,095.00 95,000.00
BASE BID *150,005.00 136,000.00 101,095.00 95,000.00
DISCOUNT
TOTAL BID *150,005.00 136,000.00 101,095.00 95,000.00
*NOTES: INDICATES RECOMMENDED AWARD
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8, Page 4 of 6
The City has been working to sell the Old Central Fire Station located at
140 Mulberry.
The following Bids were received on September 18, 2018.
• TPC Productions, LLC, Abilene, TX $150,005.00
• Levrets Office Machines, Abilene, TX $136,000.00
• All Copy, LLC, Abilene, TX $101,095.00
• W R Pittman, Abilene, TX $ 95,000.00
Staff recommends awarding the bid to TPC Productions, LLC in the amount
of $150,005.00 PLUS the advertising cost of $737.20 for a total amount
of $150,742.20.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8, Page 6 of 6
TO: Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Mr. Michael Rice, Assistant City Manager; Stanley Smith, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance: (First Reading) OAM-2017-03 Repealing Chapter 23, Subpart C, "Signsand Billboards," of the Code of Ordinances, and Amending Chapter 4, Article 2,Division 8, "Sign Regulations," of the Local Development Code, providing aseverability clause, declaring a penalty, and setting a public hearing for October 25,2018 (Zack Rainbow)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, issued an opinion that materiallychanged how the U.S. courts interpret sign and billboard regulation by states and local governments. The Court in Reed held that "content-based" regulation of signs by a local government implicates theprotections of the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution, is presumptively unconstitutional, and must passthe Court's "strict scrutiny" test. Strict scrutiny requires the local government to show a "compelling stateinterest" that is "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest, which is an almost impossible burden to prove. The Court stated that if you have to read the sign to determine if it meets or fails the regulations, then theregulation is "content'based" and subject to the ruling in Reed. Therefore, the amendment of Abilene's signordinance is to address and correct any "content-based" regulation to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court'sruling. Further, in order to comply with the Texas Local Government Code provisions regarding a city's ability torequire the owner of a sign to relocate, reconstruct or remove any sign, the sign ordinance must be amended. Specifically, the sign ordinance is being amended to provide for the relocation, reconstruction or removal ofany sign under circumstances that do not require compensation or the creation of a Municipal Board on SignControl. Those exceptions are: (1) The City requires the removal of an on-premise sign or sign structure not sooner than the first anniversaryof the date the owner ceases to operate on the premises on which the sign is located, or if leased not soonerthan the second anniversary after the date the most recent tenant ceases to operate on the premises; (2) The sign was erected in violation of local ordinances, laws or regulations applicable at the time the sign waserected; or (3) The sign is required to be removed because it, or a substantial part of it, is blown down or otherwisedestroyed or dismantled for any purpose other than maintenance, and where it is considered to be destroyed ifthe cost of repairing the sign is more than 60% of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type and location.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 1 of 56
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Additionally, the repeal and amendment seeks to move the "sign ordinance" from the City's Code ofOrdinances to the City's Land Development Code (LDC).
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of repeal and amendments to the Sign Ordinance.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its October 2, 2018 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 in favor of the amendments tothe Sign Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeEnacting Ordinance OrdinanceExhibit A - Repeal ExhibitExhibit B - Amendments ExhibitPresentation - Sign Ordinance Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 2 of 56
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 23, “PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT,” SUBPART C, “SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS,” OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF ABILENE, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 4, “SITE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS,” ARTICLE 2, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,” DIVISION 8, “SIGN
REGULATIONS,” OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING.
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in Reed v. Town of Gilbert that a local
government’s regulation of signs and billboards is severally restricted when the regulation is
“content-based”; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, amendments to the
City sign ordinance is required; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 216, Local Government Code, governs the ability of a city to regulate the
relocation, reconstruction or removal of signs; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Code provides that if the owner of a sign is required to
relocate, reconstruct, or remove any sign, the owner is entitled to be compensated by the city for
associated costs, unless the city requires the removal of an on-premise sign or sign structure not
sooner than the first anniversary of the date the owner ceases to operate on the premises on which
the sign is located; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Code provides for the creation of a municipal board of sign
control, which has the duty to determine the amount of compensation due to an owner of a sign
that is required to be relocated, reconstructed or removed; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Code provides that the compensation provisions do not apply
to a sign: (1) that was erected in violation of local ordinances, laws, or regulations applicable at
the time of its erection; or (2) is required to be removed because the sign, or a substantial part of
it, is blown down or otherwise destroyed or dismantled for any purpose other than maintenance.
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the sign ordinance should be amended to comply with
the provisions of the Local Government Code pertaining to the relocation, reconstruction or
removal of signs; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the sign ordinance provisions should be removed from
the Code of Ordinance and recodified in the Land Development Code.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 3 of 56
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ABILENE, TEXAS:
PART 1: That Chapter 23, Subpart C, Signs and Billboards, of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Abilene, Texas, is hereby repealed as set out in Exhibit A, attached and
made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 2: That Chapter 4, Article 2, Division 8, Sign Regulations, of the Land Development
Code of the City of Abilene, Texas, is hereby amended as set out in Exhibit B,
attached and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 3: That if the provisions of any section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause
of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such judgment shall not effect or invalidate the remainder of any section,
subsection, paragraph, subdivision, or clause of this ordinance.
PART 4: That any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this Ordinance
shall be deemed to have committed a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall be fined in accordance with Chapter 1 (Section 1-9) of this Code.
PASSED ON FIRST READING this 9th day of October, 2018.
A notice of the time and place, where and when said ordinance would be given a public
hearing and considered for final passage was published in the Abilene Reporter-News, a daily
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Abilene, said publication being on the 21st day of
October, 2018, the same being more than 24 hours prior to a public hearing being held in the
Council Chamber of City Hall in Abilene, Texas, at 4:30 p.m. on the 25th day of October, 2018, to
permit the public to be heard. Said Ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10)
days after its publication the newspaper, as provided by Section 19 of the Charter of the City of
Abilene.
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING this 25th day of October, 2018.
ATTEST:
______________________________ ______________________________
CITY SECRETARY MAYOR
______________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 4 of 56
“EXHIBIT A”
SUBPART C. RESERVEDSIGNS AND BILLBOARDS*
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 23-126 – 23-300. Reserved. Goals.In order to assure continuity and effectiveness in the regulation of signs, the City of Abilene has adopted the following goals to be attained by these regulations:(a) Sign regulation in the City of Abilene will recognize and appreciate the value of advertising and
signage to a successful business climate.
(b) Sign regulation in Abilene will address contemporary and future needs of Abilene by responding
to:
1. Public safety;
2. New patterns of growth;
3. More flexible zoning and land use practices;
4. The quality of the visual environment.
(c) Sign regulation in Abilene will be understandable to the public in order to encourage maximum
voluntary compliance.
(d) Sign regulation in Abilene will be simplified to the greatest extent possible so as to improve
enforcement and compliance.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Sec. 23-127. General statement of purpose.It is the purpose of this subpart to further those goals of the City of Abilene set forth in section 23-126 and to provide uniform sign standards which promote a positive city image reflecting order, harmony, and pride, thereby strengthening the economic stability of Abilene’s business, cultural, and residential areas. Objectives to be pursued in applying specific standards are as follows:(a) To identify individual business, residential, and public uses without creating confusion,
unsightliness or visual obscurity of adjacent uses;
(b) To assure that the size, scale, height, and location of all signs are directly related to the size and
character of the sites upon which the signs are located; and
(c) To assure that all signs, sign supports, and sign bases shall be so constructed and designed to
provide for safety.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Sec. 23-128. Definitions.The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and the enforcement of this subpart. In the event a word or term is not defined in this subpart but is defined elsewhere in Chapter 23, the definition set forth in Chapter 23 shall be deemed controlling. In the event of conflict between the definition of a word or term set forth in this article and the definition of the same word or term set forth in Article III of this subpart, the definition set forth in this article shall be deemed controlling as to the interpretation and enforcement of this article.Advertising: To seek the attraction of or to direct the attention of the public to any goods, services, or merchandise whatsoever.Area: The area shall be considered to be the entire area within any geometric figure, including, but not limited to, all elements of the matter displayed but not including blank masking, frames, or structured elements outside the sign bearing no advertising or graphic matter.Business entity: Any person, corporation or group of persons associated for the common purposes of engaging in a commercial or mercantile activity legally permissible under federal, state, and local laws.Commercial vehicle: Any vehicle which is used on a regular basis during working hours to transport persons, goods, or services for the purpose of engaging in business activities.Crown of street: The highest point of grade elevation of a cross section of a street, usually at a point approximately
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 5 of 56
on the center line of a street.Development site: A parcel or abutting parcels of land that have definite boundaries, which is improved or that is to be improved as a single unit of use.Electronic message sign: A sign whose informational content can be changed or altered on a fixed display screen composed of electrically illuminated segments, including LED (light emitting diode) signs, television screens, plasma screens, video boards, or other digital signs.Height: Height shall be considered to be the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is higher, and that point on the crown of the street which is nearest to the point on the sign which is used to establish the setback of the sign, as setback is hereinafter defined. For signs located two hundred (200) feet or further from a street, height shall be considered to be the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is higher, and the highest adjacent grade. Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the structural support of the sign.Mansard roof: A roof having two (2) slopes on all sides, with the lower slope steeper than the upper slope.Primary use or service: A use or service that is the principal activity on a site.Secondary use or service: A use or service that is subordinate and incidental to and serves a principal use or service.Setback: A line parallel to, and the required distance from, the lot frontage adjacent to any street abutting the lot or tract in question, or a line parallel to and the required distance from any lot abutting the side of the lot or tract in question. For purposes of determining the requirements of this section, no portion of any sign or its support shall project or extend beyond the required setback line.Sign: Any words, numbers, figures, devices, designs, trademarks, or other symbols, which attract attention to or make known such things as an individual, firm, profession, business, commodity, or service, and which are visible from any public street. This definition of “sign” shall include any structure designed to be used for said display.Sign, abandoned: Any sign which no longer correctly directs or exhorts any person or advertises a bona fide business lessor, owner, product, service, or activity.Sign appendage: A subordinate or accessory sign or object attached to a primary sign.Sign, construction: A temporary, nonportable, on-site sign indicating the names of architects, engineers, builders, contractors, or craftsmen involved in the design and construction of a project.Signs, church or institutional: Any structure, device, display board, screen, surface, or wall with characters, letters or illustrations placed thereon, by any method or means, showing names, activities and services provided by a church or other public services nonprofit institution; such sign shall be located on property occupied by such church or nonprofit institution. Portable signs are not considered church or institutional signs.Sign, damaged: Any sign which has become deteriorated or damaged and requires reconditioning to restore it to an average, normal state of repair, when such conditioning requires the replacement of broken or damaged glass or other materials, or the straightening of any sign support or other portion of the sign when the sign structure is leaning to such a degree as to be in danger of falling or collapse. A sign shall be considered damaged whenever the cost of repairing such damage is equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent of the cost, excluding sign supports, of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location.Sign, electrical: Any illuminated sign or sign utilizing any electrical devices.Sign, freestanding: Any sign permanently affixed to the ground and which is not affixed to a building and which is not used for off-premises advertising.Sign, freestanding (monument): A sign with a display surface that is an integral part of the support structure, which in turn is affixed or permanently fixed in the ground, as contrasted to any other freestanding sign that has separate support or supports attached to the display surface. For the purposes of interpretation in this subpart, “freestanding signs” shall include monument signs, but “freestanding monument signs” shall not include other types of freestanding signs.Sign, garage sale: Any sign for sale of twenty (20) or more items of used personal property from a residence, including “patio sales,” “porch sales” and “driveway sales,” “yard sales,” and similar terminology.Sign, government: Any sign indicating public works projects, public services or other programs or activities conducted or required by any governmental subdivision.Sign, instructional (private): A permanent, on-site sign used to provide warning, identification, information, or directions such as traffic signs, parking signs, and loading area signs.Sign, moving message: Any sign which has automatically changing advertising or which has any moving message.Sign, multi-party: Any sign which is used or intended to be used for advertising purposes by more than one business entity located on the development site.Sign, off-site advertising or billboard: A sign which advertises or directs attention to commodities, services,
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 6 of 56
entertainment, business, or activities offered off the premises where the sign is located. This category includes the conventional painted bulletin or poster panel.Sign, on-site business and/or identification: A sign directing attention to or presenting commodities, services, or activities conducted, sold or offered on the premises where the sign is located, and may include name of the establishment or business offering such commodities services or activities. An on-site sign which does not advertise commodities or services, but calls attention to name and/or address of the business located on the premises is included within this category.Sign, political or noncommercial: A sign erected on private property by or with approval of the property owner solely for the purpose of advocating certain political candidates; or for a specific identifiable date or certain election; or propositions. This definition shall not apply to portable signs.Sign, portable: A sign which is not designed or manufactured to be permanently anchored or affixed to the ground, building or other structure, but rather is designed or primarily used as a sign which is movable from place to place and which includes but is not limited to signs affixed to a trailer or other portable structure and “A” frame or sandwich signs.Sign, nonportable: A sign designed or manufactured to be anchored or affixed to the ground, buildings or other structures in a manner restricting easy movement from place to place. Nonportable signs do not include portable signs which have had wheels removed or have been modified in such a way as to be anchored to the ground or other structures by means of chains, cables, stakes, or similar devices unless such modifications will prohibit removal of the sign and reinstallation at another location. Nonportable signs may, however, include signs utilizing posts, poles, beams, and similar structural components that may be affixed to the ground in a temporary fashion. Nonportable signs may also include signs utilizing braces, hangers, wall anchors and similar structural components that may be affixed to buildings or other structures in a temporary fashion. In either case, nonportable signs will conform to the Uniform Building Code.Sign, realty: A sign located on real property that is for rent, lease or sale, said sign being for the purpose of advertising the rent, lease or sale of said property.Sign, special development temporary: A temporary, nonportable on-site sign indicating the name of a project or subdivision under development, including the name and address of the project developer, contractors and builders involved in the construction of the development.Sign, structural: A nonportable sign other than wall signs.Sign, temporary: Any sign which is displayed, as permitted under the terms and provisions of this subpart, for a limited period of time for the purposes of sales promotion or providing information concerning an event or activity occurring upon the property where the sign is displayed, which sign shall be removed promptly upon the conclusion of any such sale, event or activity.Sign, wall: Any sign affixed flat against and parallel to a building wall. For the purpose of this definition, wall shall include window areas.Visibility triangle: A triangle formed by a diagonal line extending through two (2) points on the two (2) curb lines or edge of pavement line thirty (30) feet from the street corner intersection.(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88; Ord. No. 7-1991, pt. 1, 2-14-91; Ord. No. 57-2008, pt. 1(Exh. A), 10-23-08)Sec. 23-129. General provisions.All signs, other than address identification signs, shall pertain to the identification of the primary uses, by name of the occupant or business, and/or primary services provided or primary products sold on the premises. All other signs may be considered off-site advertising (or billboards) signs, other noncommercial, and private instructional signs as hereinafter provided.Where applicable, a sign shall, at the time the sign is permitted, meet all requirements of Chapter 8 of this Code of Ordinances and any other applicable requirements of said Code.All signs, including those painted on the walls of buildings, shall be permanently maintained in a safe, structurally sound condition, and in good repair including the replacement of defective parts, painting, repainting, cleaning and other acts required for the maintenance of said sign. All braces, bolts, clips, supporting frames and fastenings shall be free from deterioration, termite infestation, rot or loosening. All signs shall further be maintained in compliance with any additional requirements for signs as are specified in Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Abilene and other applicable requirements of said Code.No sign in any zoning district shall project into the public right-of-way of any street or alley except in the central business district. In a central business district, no sign shall extend outward from any building face into the public right-of-way for a distance of more than within two (2) feet of the street curb, nor shall be erected so as to overhang a sidewalk or public right-of-way at a height of less than eight (8) feet.(1) Exception: Waiting benches and other items providing a public service have advertising affixed to
them shall be considered signs and allowed in the public right-of-way, subject to the approval of the city
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 7 of 56
council, to include issuance of a street use license, and all other conditions deemed appropriate to
ensure the public safety.
Every business location shall be adequately identified by a street address, i.e. street numbers and/or street name, which is clearly visible from the street adjacent to the front entrance of such business. However, the area of a sign which is erected for the sole purpose of providing such street address identification shall not be subtracted from or count against the total allowable sign area requirements for the several districts as hereinafter specified in this subpart. Further, such street address identification may be incorporated into any sign permitted under the terms and provisions of this subpart so long as such street address identification does not increase the maximum allowable sign area of any sign by more than ten (10) percent. The incorporation of such street address identification shall not change the height or setback requirements from the maximums or minimums allowable for such sign prior to incorporation thereof.All lighting shall be so shielded as to prevent intensive light or glare on adjacent property and roadways.Fees and charges for services provided by the city (permit fees, hauling and storage fees) shall be determined from time to time and placed on file in the office of the city secretary.(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88; Ord. No. 7-1991, pt. 1, 2-14-91)Secs. 23-130–23-145. Reserved.ARTICLE II. PERMITSSec. 23-146. Permits required.Except as provided in section 23-147, a permit shall be obtained from the city for a proposed sign.(a) Structural signs. For purposes of design of structural members on signs, the current Uniform
Building Code of the city shall be utilized.
(b) Electrical signs. All illuminated signs or signs utilizing any electrical devices shall require an
electrical permit and shall be wired in accordance with the electrical code of the city.
(c) Permit to enlarge, alter, repair, etc. No sign shall be altered, rebuilt, enlarged, extended, replaced
or relocated, nor shall sign faces be renewed or neon tubing be rearranged when the values of such
work exceeds fifty (50) percent of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location,
except upon the issuance of a permit, and all work done under such permit shall be in conformity with
the requirements of this chapter.
The changing of movable parts of signs which are designed for changing, or the repainting of display
matter or the repairing of damaged neon tubing while a sign is in place shall not be deemed to be
alterations for the purpose of this section.
(d) Construction time limitations. Construction activities pertaining to permanent off-site signs must
commence within thirty (30) days of the date of the sign application permit as filed with the city.
Construction will be completed within forty-five (45) days of the above date. Failure to comply with these
provisions will result in the revocation of the permit application. In addition, the same applicant may not
reapply for another sign permit at the location concerned for a period of six (6) months.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88; Ord. No. 47-1988, pt. 1, 9-22-88)Sec. 23-147. Signs exempted from permit requirements.No permit shall be required to erect any of the signs set forth in this section:(1) Signs indicating only the name and/or address of the occupants of residential units;
(2) Non-illuminated signs located on private property that are no greater than six (6) square feet in
area;
(3) Non-illuminated signs pertaining to construction on residential property upon which the signs are
located, as permitted under section 23-161;
(4) Non-illuminated political signs located on private property in residential zones or on private
property in commercial/office zones, for the purpose of advocating certain political candidates, or for a
specific, identifiable date or certain election, or propositions. This provisions shall not apply to portable
signs.
No person shall place any political sign on any telegraph, telephone or electric light pole located on
any street, alley sidewalk or park or parkway within the city. Furthermore, political signs in any
residential area shall not:
a. Be placed or erected within any public right-of-way;
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 8 of 56
b. Exceed a size of six (6) square feet;
c. Be posted or erected more than forty-five (45) days prior to the election to which they pertain or be
allowed to remain posted or erected more than fourteen (14) days subsequent to such election.
(5) Non-illuminated temporary business promotional signs placed in or on windows of structures in
commercial/office use, except as provided in section 23-171, special regulations for portable signs;
(6) Non-illuminated community service signs placed in or on windows of structures in
commercial/office use.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Sec. 23-148. Prohibited signs.The following signs shall be prohibited in all zoning districts:(a) Signs or posters of miscellaneous character, not otherwise regulated, which are tacked, painted,
pasted or otherwise affixed to trees, poles, posts, fences or other structures in rights-of-way or
easements;
(b) Banners, pennants, searchlights, twirling signs or any other advertising sign of a similar nature,
located upon the sidewalk, curb or right-of-way;
(c) Flags, banners, or pennants which obstruct the view of traffic;
(d) Any signs which resemble official traffic-control signs, signals or devices, which bear the words,
“Stop,” “Go Slow,” “Caution,” “Danger,” “Warning,” or similar words;
(e) Signs which, by reason of their size, location, content, coloring, manner of illumination, or devices
causing motion or movement may be confused with or construed as traffic-control signs, signals or
devices, or the lights of an emergency or road equipment vehicle, or which hide from view any traffic-
control or street signs, signals or devices; or any sign which may, in the opinion of the director of traffic
and transportation, create or cause a hazard;
(f) Any sign or advertising device attached to or located on any vehicle or trailer parked on a public
right-of-way or public property for the basic purpose of direction, advertising, etc.
(1) Exception: This subsection shall not be construed so as to prohibit typical vehicular signage such
as is lettered on a commercial vehicle;
(g) Any sign which emits audible sound, odor, or visible matter.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Sec. 23-149. Bonding.Performance guarantee. No permit for the installation, erection, and/or maintenance of signs shall be issued to any person or entity until a performance guarantee has been filed with the City of Abilene to guarantee performance under Chapter 23 of the City Code. Said guarantee shall be in the form of a bond issued by a corporate surety, licensed to do business in the State of Texas, or an individual bond, or any other acceptable financial guarantee (such as a letter of credit or cashiers check) shall be approved by the city manager or his designee and be in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). Said guarantee shall insure that the permittee shall install, erect, repair, and/or demolish signs in accordance with the provisions of this and all other applicable ordinances of the city in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the prevailing standards of the trade. Upon final approval of sign installation, erection, repair and/or demolition, the permittee shall be released from the obligation of the performance guarantee.(1) Exception: Wall signs shall be exempted from bonding requirements.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Secs. 23-150–23-160. Reserved.ARTICLE III. LOCATION STANDARDSSec. 23-161. Area, height, placement and number.(a) All nonportable signs not specifically exempted from permits (by the terms of section 23-147) shall
be permitted only for the purposes identified in this section 23-161 and within the limitations prescribed
by this section.
(b) Area shall be considered to be the entire area within any geometric figure, including, but not
limited to, all elements of the matter displayed, but not including blank masking, frames, or structured
elements outside the sign bearing no advertising or graphic matter.
(c) Height shall be considered to be the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 9 of 56
supporting structure, whichever is higher, and that point on the crown of the street which is nearest to
the point on the sign which is used to establish the setback of the sign, as setback is herein defined. For
signs located two hundred (200) feet or further from a street, height shall be considered to be the
vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is higher,
and the highest adjacent grade. Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural elevation of the
ground surface prior to construction next to the structural support of the sign.
(d) Setback shall be considered to mean a line parallel to, and the required distance from, the lot
frontage adjacent to any street abutting the lot or tract in question, or a line parallel to and the required
distance from any lot abutting the side of the lot or tract in question. For purposes of determining the
requirements of this section, no portion of any sign or its support shall project or extend beyond the
required setback line.
(e) Visibility triangle shall be considered to mean a triangle formed by a diagonal line extending
through two (2) points on the two (2) curb lines or edge of pavement line thirty (30) feet from the street
corner intersection. No sign or supporting structure shall be placed within the visibility triangle unless
there is a minimum height of eight (8) feet from the ground to the lowest point on the sign or structure
projecting over the triangle. In no instance, however, shall such projections extend or project beyond the
required setbacks.
(f) Sign standards. Signs shall meet the standards delineated in the following table and the following
footnotes referenced in the table:
(1) Off-site advertising signs are prohibited within the city limits of the City of Abilene and its
extraterritorial jurisdiction, except as specifically authorized below:
(a) Off-site advertising signs are only permitted within the following zoning districts: Shopping Center
(SC), General Commercial (GC), Heavy Commercial (HC), Light Industrial (LI), Heavy Industrial (HI),
and Agricultural-Open Space (AO). Off-site advertising signs are only permitted within the AO district
with a special exception granted by the board of adjustment. In determining the suitability of a site within
the AO district, the board shall consider the proximity of the proposed location to existing or proposed
residential uses as may be indicated on the zoning map of the City of Abilene or any land use plans that
have been approved by either the planning and zoning commission or the city council.
(b) Regulation of Type I signs:
i. Type I signs are those located along and oriented to a thoroughfare designated as a freeway or
expressway in the city’s adopted Thoroughfare Plan and are only permitted in the following locations:
Interstate Highway 20;
US Highway 83;
Loop 322.
ii. Type I signs shall have a maximum area of 672 square feet and a maximum height of 42 feet, 6
inches or such height so that the bottom of the sign face is 8 feet higher than the adjacent main-traveled
way, as defined by the Texas Department of Transportation, whichever is higher.
(c) Regulation of Type II signs:
i. Type II signs are those located along and oriented to a thoroughfare designated as an arterial or
collector in the city’s adopted Thoroughfare Plan and are only permitted in the following locations:
US Highways 83/277;
US Highways 83/84;
Ambler Avenue;
North 10th Street;
North 1st Street;
East Highway 80;
South 1st Street;
South 7th Street;
East South 11th Street;
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 10 of 56
South 14th Street;
Texas Avenue;
South 27th Street;
Industrial Blvd.;
Rebecca Lane;
Antilley Road;
Southwest Drive;
Pioneer Drive;
Mockingbird Lane;
Barrow Street;
Sayles Blvd;
Buffalo Gap Road;
Grape Street;
Treadaway Blvd/Pine Street (Business 83);
Judge Ely Blvd;
Ridgemont Drive;
Catclaw Drive;
Pine Street;
Willis Street;
Leggett Drive.
ii. Type II signs shall have a maximum area of 378 square feet and a maximum height of 35 feet.
(2) Spacing and separation of off-site advertising signs shall be based on the following:
(a) Signs shall be separated from other off-site advertising signs on the same side of the street by a
minimum distance of 1,500 feet on interstate and primary highways, as designated by the Texas
Department of Transportation.
(b) Signs shall be separated from other off-site advertising signs on the same side of the street by a
minimum distance of 750 feet when not on an interstate or primary highway.
(c) Signs shall be separated from other off-site advertising signs in any direction by a minimum of 250
feet.
(d) No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than 135 feet from a lot in a Residential Single
Family (RS), Mobile Home (MH), or RM-3 district.
(e) No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than 400 feet from a lot in a Residential Single
Family (RS), Mobile Home (MH), or RM-3 district when adjacent to roadways designated as interstate or
primary.
Sign Classification Permitted Zoning Districts
Maximum Area
Maximum Height
Minimum Setback Required
Number and/or Spacing Limitations
Illumination Permitted
Motion Permitted
Additional Require-ments
OFFSITE
Type I SCGCHCLIHIAO (SE)(1)
672 sq. ft. 42.5 ft. or bottom of sign 8 ft. above primary roadway(1), (5), (6)
10 feet if abutting RM-1, RM-2, CU, or AO
1,500 ft. spacing on same side of street250 ft. radial spacing(2)
Yes Yes Permit Required(1)
Type II SCGCHCLIHIAO (SE)(1)
378 sq. ft. 35 ft.(1), (5), (6)
10 feet if abutting RM-1, RM-2, CU, or AO
750 ft. spacing on same side of street, except 1,500 ft. on interstate or primary250 ft. radial spacing(2)
Yes Yes Permit Required(1)
ONSIT
Business and/or Identifi-cation
AO 700 sq. ft. 35 ft.(5), (6)
10 ft. from property line
One per business or activity
Yes Yes Permit Required
MUO
36 sq. ft. 12 ft 10 ft. from property line
One per business or activity
Yes Yes Permit Required
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 11 of 56
E SCCBGCHCLIHI
300 sq. ft. (no limitation for wall signs)
50 ft, except in CB (no restrictions)(5), (6)
(4) One freestanding sign per business per street frontage
Yes Yes Permit Required
LCPI
100 sq. ft. (no limitation for wall signs)
36 ft.(5), (6)
(4) One freestanding sign per business per street frontage
Yes Yes Permit Required
RM MH CU 20 sq. ft.(3)
10 ft.(3)
10 feet from property line
One per business or activity per street frontage
Yes Yes Permit Required
RS 6 sq. ft.(3)
(3) (4) One per premises(3)
No(3)
No(3)
Instruc-tional, Private
All Districts, except RS
8 sq. ft. 10 ft.
As needed Yes Yes Permit Required
Con-struction
All Districts 80 sq. ft. 15 ft. 10 feet from all property lines, except in CB
n/a Yes Yes Maximum Duration: until approx. 90% complete
Special Devel- opment
All Districts 80 sq. ft. 15 ft. 10 feet from all property lines, except in CB
n/a Yes Yes Permit required if electrical
Footnotes:
(1) No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than one hundred thirty-five (135) feet from a
lot in a residential single-family or RM-3 district.
No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than four hundred (400) feet from a lot in a
residential single-family or RM-3 district when adjacent to interstate or primary road systems.
In AO zoning districts, off-site advertising signs may be permitted upon issuance of special
exemption by the zoning board of adjustment after a public hearing. In determining the suitability of a
site for placement of an off-site advertising sign, the board shall consider the proximity of the proposed
location to existing or proposed residential uses as may be indicated on the zoning map of the City of
Abilene or any land use plans that have been approved by either the planning and zoning commission
or the city council. Setbacks for off-site advertising signs on interstate/primary roads shall be
established by the State of Texas.
(2) The minimum separation shall be measured from signs on the same side of the street.
(3) Freestanding institutional signs (identifying churches and other public service non-profit
institutions) located within residential districts are permitted to be up to 80 square feet in area and up to
25 feet in height. Such institutions are permitted only one freestanding sign per street front. In addition,
such institutions shall be permitted one wall sign (for identification purposes) per street frontage so long
as such sign exceeds no more than 100 square feet in area. Such signs shall be permitted to be
illuminated and may be an electronic message sign. A permit from the city shall be required for
installation of all signs identifying churches and other institutions within residential districts. Except as
otherwise stated above, all other requirements for identification signs in residential districts shall be
applicable to those identifying churches and other institutions.
(4) Front setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from back of curb or edge of pavement where
there is no curb; provided, however, that no sign shall project into the public right-of-way of any street or
alley except in the central business district as provided in section 23-129(d), general provisions.
Side setbacks shall be ten (10) feet from any side abutting a lot or tract in an AO, RS, RM, MH, or
CU district. In all other cases there shall be no side setback.
(5) Freestanding signs shall have a minimum grade clearance of eight (8) feet. Freestanding
monument signs shall not exceed a height of forty-two (42) inches.
Exception: Freestanding signs (including monument signs) set back a minimum twenty-five (25) feet
from all street-side property boundaries do not need a minimum grade clearance of eight (8) feet. A sign
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 12 of 56
so located may also exceed the forty-two-inch height limitation, but shall not exceed the maximum area
or height of signs allowed.
(6) Off site advertising in the PZ (Park Zone) district is only permitted if physically attached to arenas,
rodeo grounds, stadiums, gymnasiums, ballfields or fairgrounds.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88; Ord. No. 34-1997, pt. 1(Exh. A), 7-24-97; Ord. No. 17-2007, pt. 1(Exh. A), 5-10-07; Ord. No. 14-2013, pt. 1(Exh. A), 4-11-13)Secs. 23-162–23-170. Reserved.
ARTICLE IV. REGULATION OF OTHER SIGNS*
Sec. 23-171. Special regulations for portable signs.(a) Permits. Portable signs are prohibited in residential areas, including multi-family and mobile home
developments. Prior to the use or placement of any portable sign, a permit must be obtained pursuant
to the following terms and conditions. Permits for portable signs may be issued to persons other than
sign contractors, and no bonds are required.
(1) A portable sign permit may be issued for shopping centers, commercial, retail, or office
developments; however, only one (1) portable sign per business location is allowed.
(2) Portable signs shall be located no closer than ten (10) feet to the street and a greater distance if
necessary to be located off of the right-of-way. In no case shall the portable sign be located within the
public right-of-way. Further, said signs shall not be located in the area designated as the intersection
visibility area.
(3) No portable sign shall be placed so as to project into the public right-of-way of any street or alley.
(4) Portable signs shall permanently display on the sign in easily readable form the name, address,
city, zip code and telephone number of the owner of said sign.
(5) Portable signs may be internally or indirectly lighted. Any accessory lighting, if present,
surrounding the message display area, shall contain only lamps not to exceed sixty (60) watts. All
portable signs utilizing electrical power shall be wired in accordance with the City of Abilene’s electrical
code. Electrical outlets serving the sign must be located entirely beneath the frame of the sign and must
be equipped with a ground-fault interrupter device.
(6) Unsafe signs listed in subsection (b) shall not be eligible for a permit.
(7) A permit shall be obtained for each portable sign.
(8) If required, each portable sign shall satisfy any permit requirements in the building code and
electrical code.
(9) Church and school facilities located in residential areas shall be allowed one (1) portable sign for
not more than six (6) nonconsecutive two-week periods during any calendar year, regardless of street
frontage. This provision shall not exempt the requirements for permitting described herein.
For purposes of this section, residential areas shall be defined as all single-family, multi-family and
mobile home zoning districts.
(10) Portable signs shall be allowed in residential multi-family districts, for purposes other than church
or school identification as provided for above, subject to a special exception being granted by the board
of adjustment. As with any special exception request, the board of adjustment may attach any
conditions to its approval deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) Unsafe signs prohibited. It is hereby expressly declared that the following signs are in fact unsafe
signs causing immediate danger, and it shall be the duty of the owner of the sign, the lessee of the sign,
the owner of the property on which the sign is located, and the owner and manager of any business
advertised on the sign to immediately remove the sign, or correct the unsafe conditions, and the refusal
to do so will constitute a violation of this section.
(1) Any portable sign erected, placed, used, altered, or maintained in the public right-of-way.
(2) Any portable sign or sign-supporting structure which is located within the area defined as the
intersection visibility triangle.
(3) Any portable sign which becomes insecure, in danger of falling or otherwise unsafe, or any
portable sign which is erected or maintained in violation of the provisions of the building code or
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 13 of 56
electrical code.
(4) Any portable sign located nearer than ten (10) feet from the street.
(5) Any portable sign which is located or constructed so as to interfere with or confuse the control of
traffic on the public streets.
(6) Any portable sign which resembles an official traffic sign or signal or which bears the words
“Stop,” “Go Slow,” “Caution,” “Danger,” “Warning,” or similar words is prohibited.
(c) Impoundment:
(1) The owner or occupant of any property upon which there is located a sign in violation of this
section or the owner or lessee of any portable sign, or the owner and manager of any business
advertised on a portable sign which is in violation of this section as herein defined shall be given written
notice by the city manager or his designee stating the nature of the violation and ordering that the
violation be corrected or removed from said property within seventy-two (72) hours.
(2) If the owner, lessor, lessee, or the representative of the lessor or the owner and manager of any
business advertised on a portable sign fails to remove such sign within seventy-two (72) hours of written
notification, or by publication if the address is unknown, the portable sign may be removed by the city at
the expense of the sign owner or the person erecting, leasing, using, or maintaining it.
(3) Any portable sign so removed from public or private property shall be stored or impounded by the
city until all applicable charges have been paid, or until sixty (60) days have passed.
(4) If any sign remains unclaimed for a period of sixty (60) days after its removal, or if the removal
and storage costs are not paid within such sixty-day period, the city may sell or otherwise dispose of the
sign. In calculating the length of the storage period and the storage fee, the first working day after the
date of the impoundment shall be considered day number one (1); thereafter, all days including
weekends and holidays shall be counted.
(5) The city manager or his designee may enter upon private property which is accessible to the
public for the purposes specified in this section to examine signs or their location, obtain information as
to the ownership of signs and to remove or cause the removal of a sign declared to be a nuisance
pursuant to this section.
(d) Appeal procedures. Appeals of the provisions of this section shall be in accordance with the
procedures set forth in section 23-184.
(e) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to all portable signs in the city, and
nonconforming status or rights will not be granted to existing portable signs.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Sec. 23-172. Special regulations for electronic message signs.In addition to any other requirements of this chapter, electronic message signs shall adhere to the following requirements:(a) Operational limitations for on-premise signs over seventy-five (75) square feet in area or any off-
premise sign.
(1) Such signs shall contain static messages only and shall not have movement, or the appearance
or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign or sign structure, including the movement or
appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating, or varying of light intensity.
(2) Minimum display time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of eight (8)
seconds.
(3) Transition. The transition from one sign message to another must occur within two (2) seconds
and may not include flashing or appearance of motion, with the exception of a fade out or in, dissolve,
or scroll that must be accomplished within the transition period.
(b) Operational limitations for all signs.
(1) Limitations. All such signs shall have no flashing or full motion video.
(2) Unless permitted as an off-premise sign, such signs shall not include off-premise advertising
messages.
(c) Sign face limitations.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 14 of 56
(1) Each sign structure is limited to not more than two (2) sides with one sign face per side.
(2) The entire sign face must comply with the operation limitations defined above and a sign face may
not be apportioned into separate areas each acting as a separate sign face under these restrictions.
(d) Brightness.
(1) All such signs shall be equipped with light sensing devices or a scheduled dimming timer that will
automatically dim the intensity of the light emitted by the sign during ambient low-light conditions and at
night so that the sign does not exceed the maximum brightness levels allowed in this section.
(2) Maximum brightness shall not exceed seven thousand (7,000) nits when measured from the
sign’s face at its maximum brightness during daylight hours and shall not exceed one thousand (1,000)
nits when measured from the sign’s face at its maximum brightness at night.
(3) If such sign is located within one hundred (100) feet of a property with residential zoning, the sign
must be oriented such that no portion of the electronic sign face is visible from a residentially-zoned
property or the brightness is reduced to no more than two hundred fifty (250) nits at night.
(4) Prior to the issuance of a permit for such sign, the applicant shall provide written certification from
the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory preset not to exceed the levels specified
above.
(e) The city may order a sign’s brightness reduced, its minimum display time increased, or other
operational characteristics altered if the director of public works, or designee, finds that it interferes with
or poses a traffic safety hazard to the operation of vehicles.
(f) All such signs shall be turned off or display a blank screen when malfunctioning.
(Ord. No. 57-2008, pt. 1(Exh. A), 10-23-08)Secs. 23-173–23-180. Reserved.ARTICLE V. ENFORCEMENTSec. 23-181. Enforcement responsibility.The city manager shall designate a member of the city’s staff who shall have the responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this subpart. References herein made to the performance of certain functions by the city shall be deemed references to performance by the city manager’s designee. The duties of such designee shall include not only the issuance of permits as required by this subpart, but also the responsibility of ensuring that all signs conform with this subpart and with any other applicable laws, requirements and regulations of this Code of Ordinances or of the City of Abilene and that all signs for which permits are required do in fact have permits. The city manager or his designee shall have the authority to adopt regulations and procedures not inconsistent with the terms of this subpart necessary to implement the provisions of this subpart.(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Sec. 23-182. Violations.It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use or maintain any sign or structure in the city, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this subpart. The regulations of this subpart are not intended to permit any violation of the provisions of any other lawful ordinance or regulation of the city.(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Sec. 23-183. Stop orders, revocation of permit; repair or removal required.The city shall have the power to issue stop orders, to require the repair or removal of certain signs and/or to revoke sign permits, as provided in this section. In so doing, the city shall comply with all procedural requirements specified in this section for the giving of notice, the issuance of orders, the removal of signs and storage and/or sale thereof by the city, and the conduct of hearings on permit revocations.(a) Stop orders. If the city shall determine that work on any sign is being performed without a permit
or in a dangerous or unsafe manner, upon written notice and issuance of a stop order by the city, such
work shall be immediately stopped. Such notice shall be given to the owner of the property or to his
agent, or to the person doing the work, and shall state the conditions under which work may be
resumed. However, where an emergency exists, written notice shall not be required. Following the
issuance of a stop order, the city shall initiate proceedings to revoke any permit issued for the work
covered by such stop order unless the cause of the stop order is resolved to the city’s satisfaction.
(b) Revocation of permit. The city shall have, and is hereby granted, the power and authority to
revoke any and all permits authorized by this Code for violation of the terms and provisions of this Code,
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 15 of 56
subject to the procedural requirements of this Code for notice and hearing. Permits may be revoked if
they were issued in error or as a result of misinformation or misinterpretation of the facts associated with
their issuance.
(c) Repair or removal required. The city is authorized to require the repair or removal of signs within
the city under the following conditions. Should the responsible party or parties fail or refuse, after due
notice, to bring a sign into conformity with this Code or to remove the same, the city is authorized to
remove said sign and to store and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedural requirements
of this Code of Ordinances. The city shall also file against the property a lien in the amount of the cost
of all such work.
(1) Signs erected without permit. In the event any sign shall be erected within the city without a
permit, when such sign shall require a permit, the city is authorized to remove said sign and to store and
dispose of the same in accordance with the procedural requirements of this Code of Ordinances.
(d) All abandoned signs shall be brought into compliance within forty-five (45) days from the date of
notification. Compliance with the ordinance shall be accomplished by painting over or removing the face
of the sign until such time as the sign correctly directs or exhorts any person or advertises a bona fide
business lessor, owner, product, service, or activity.
(e) All damaged signs shall be repaired within forty-five (45) days from the date of notification.
A sign shall be considered damaged whenever the cost of repairing such damage is equal to or
greater than fifty (50) percent of the cost, excluding sign supports, of erecting a new sign of the same
type at the same location.
(f) Nonconforming signs. A legally nonconforming sign that has been blown down or otherwise
destroyed or dismantled for any purpose may be re-erected to its original condition, size, and location.
(g) Hazardous signs. Any sign which in the opinion of the city manager or his designee clearly
presents an immediate hazard to the public must be removed or repaired upon notice to the owner of
the sign, the lessee of the sign, the owner of the property on which the sign is located, or the owner and
manager of any business advertised on the sign to immediately remove the sign or correct the unsafe
condition.
(h) Signs not properly maintained. If the city shall determine that any sign is not being maintained as
required by the terms and provisions of this Code, the city shall give written notice to the owner or
lessee thereof to so maintain the sign or to remove the sign.
(i) Unlawful signs. Should any sign be installed, erected, constructed or maintained in violation of any
of the terms of this Code, the city shall give written notice to the owner, lessee or person responsible for
said sign, ordering that the sign be altered so as to comply with this Code or to remove the sign.
(1) If a sign is determined to have been erected, installed, or constructed in violation of the
regulations applicable at the time of its erection, installation, or construction, the city shall give written
notice to the owner, lessee, or person responsible for said sign ordering that the sign be altered so as to
comply with this Code or to remove the sign.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88; Ord. No. 7-1991, pt. 1, 2-14-91)Sec. 23-184. Appeals, interpretations, variances.(a) Except as provided in this section, the zoning board of adjustment is authorized to hear and
decide appeals, provide interpretation, and grant variances subject to the rules and procedures for the
zoning board of adjustment as set forth in section 23-356.2., administration, of the zoning ordinance of
the City of Abilene, Texas, provided however:
(1) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance to the terms of this subpart the effect of which
would allow erection or placement of any sign prohibited by section 23-148, prohibited signs.
(2) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance to the terms of this subpart the effect of which
would allow placement of any sign in any district where such sign is prohibited in that district.
(3) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance which will allow any sign erected in violation of
any previous ordinance in effect at the time of the sign’s erection to violate the terms of this subpart.
(4) The board of adjustment may not waive any requirement for any permit, bond, or inspection
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 16 of 56
required under the terms of this subpart.
(5) The board of adjustment shall not hear any appeal, interpretation, or variance from the provisions
of the building code of the city as they apply to the construction of any sign. In instances where such
questions arise, it shall be the responsibility of the board of building standards of the city to hear and
decide those questions in accordance with its rules and procedures.
(6) The board of adjustment shall not hear any appeal, interpretation, or variance from the provisions
of the electrical code of the city as they apply to any electrical aspects of any sign. In instances where
such questions arise, it shall be the responsibility of the board of electrical examiners of the city to hear
and decide those questions in accordance with its rules and procedures.
(b) Any person who is required to remove or modify a portable sign as a result of section 23-171,
special regulations for portable signs, may, within a seventy-two-hour period after service of notice is
given, request in writing a hearing to determine whether he or she is in violation of this subpart. If such
hearing is requested, it will be held at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of
adjustment subject to meeting the requirements of the Open Meetings Act and appropriate notice
provisions.
(1) If the board of adjustment, after considering the evidence, decides that the sign in question is in
fact in violation, then, the sign shall be removed or brought into compliance within seventy-two (72)
hours from the time the board’s decision is rendered.
(2) This section shall not in any way negate the right of the city to immediately remove any portable
sign creating a real and immediate danger to life or property.
(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)
Sec. 23-185. Penalties and violations.Violations of provisions of this subpart or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with approval of variances) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this subpart or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined in accordance with section 1-9, general penalties, of this Code. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense.The owner or occupant of any building, structure, premises, or part thereof, and any architect, builder, contractor, agent, or other person who commits, participates in, assists in, or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the penalties herein provided.Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.It is further the intent and declared purpose of this ordinance that no offense committed, and no liability, penalty, or forfeiture, either civil or criminal, incurred prior to the time that the existing ordinance was repealed and such ordinance adopted shall be discharged or affected by such repeal, but prosecutions and suits for such offenses, liabilities, penalties, or forfeitures may be instituted, and causes presently in process may be prosecuted in all respects as if such prior ordinance had not been repealed.(Ord. No. 11-1988, pt. 1, 3-10-88)Secs. 23-186–23-250. Reserved.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 17 of 56
“EXHIBIT B”
Division 8 Sign Regulations
Sec. 23-126. 4.2.8.1 Goals.
In order to assure continuity and effectiveness in the regulation of signs, the City of Abilene has adopted the following goals to be attained by these regulations:
(a) Sign regulation in the City of Abilene will recognize and appreciate the value of advertising and signage to a successful business climate.
(b) Sign regulation in Abilene will address contemporary and future needs of Abilene by responding to:
1. Public safety;
2. New patterns of growth;
3. More flexible zoning and land use practices;
4. The quality of the visual environment.
(c) Sign regulation in Abilene will be understandable to the public in order to encourage maximum voluntary compliance.
(d) Sign regulation in Abilene will be simplified to the greatest extent possible so as to improve enforcement and compliance.
Sec. 23-127. 4.2.8.2 General statement of purpose.
It is the purpose of this subpart to further those goals of the City of Abilene set forth in section 23-126 4.2.8.1 and to provide uniform sign standards which promote a positive city image reflecting order, harmony, and pride, thereby strengthening the economic stability of Abilene’s business, cultural, and residential areas. Objectives to be pursued in applying specific standards are as follows:
(a) To protect the public welfare and enhance the appearance and economic value of the cityscape by requiring signs that do not create a nuisance to contiguous or adjacent occupancies or to persons using the public right-of-way. To identify individual business, residential, and public uses without creating confusion, unsightliness or visual obscurity of adjacent uses;
(b) To assure that the size, scale, height, and location of all signs are directly related to the size and character of the sites upon which the signs are located; and
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 18 of 56
(c) To assure that all signs, sign supports, and sign bases shall be so constructed and designed to provide for safety.
Sec. 23-128. 4.2.8.3 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and the enforcement of this subpart. In the event a word or term is not defined in this subpart but is defined elsewhere in Chapter 23this Division, the definition set forth in Chapter 23this Division shall be deemed controlling. In the event of conflict between the definition of a word or term set forth in this articlesection and the definition of the same word or term set forth in this Division Article III of this subpart, the definition set forth in this articlesection shall be deemed controlling as to the interpretation and enforcement of this article.
Advertising: To seek the attraction of or to direct the attention of the public to any goods, services, or merchandise whatsoever.
Area: The area shall be considered to be the entire area within any geometric figure, including, but not limited to, all elements of the matter displayed but not including blank masking, frames, or structured elements outside the sign bearing no advertising or graphic matter.
Business entity: Any person, corporation or group of persons associated for the common purposes of engaging in a commercial or mercantile activity legally permissible under federal, state, and local laws.
Commercial vehicle: Any vehicle which is used on a regular basis during working hours to transport persons, goods, or services for the purpose of engaging in business activities.
Crown of street: The highest point of grade elevation of a cross section of a street, usually at a point approximately on the center line of a street.
Development site: A parcel or abutting parcels of land that have definite boundaries, which is improved or that is to be improved as a single unit of use.
Electronic message sign: A sign whose informational content can be changed or altered on a fixed display screen composed of electrically illuminated segments, including LED (light emitting diode) signs, television screens, plasma screens, video boards, or other digital signs.
Height: Height shall be considered to be the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is higher, and that point on the crown of the street which is nearest to the point on the sign which is used to establish the setback of the sign, as setback is hereinafter defined. For signs located two hundred (200) feet or further from a street, height shall be considered to be the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is higher, and the highest adjacent grade. Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the structural support of the sign.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 19 of 56
Mansard roof: A roof having two (2) slopes on all sides, with the lower slope steeper than the upper slope.
Primary use or service: A use or service that is the principal activity on a site.
Secondary use or service: A use or service that is subordinate and incidental to and serves a principal use or service.
Setback: A line parallel to, and the required distance from, the lot frontage adjacent to any street abutting the lot or tract in question, or a line parallel to and the required distance from any lot abutting the side of the lot or tract in question. For purposes of determining the requirements of this section, no portion of any sign or its support shall project or extend beyond the required setback line.
Sign: Any words, numbers, figures, devices, designs, trademarks, or other symbols, which attract attention to or make known such things as an individual, firm, profession, business, commodity, or service, and which are visible from any public street. This definition of “sign” shall include any structure designed to be used for said display. House numbers are not included within the definition of a sign.
Sign, abandoned: Any sign which no longer correctly directs or exhorts any person or advertises a bona fide business lessor, owner, product, service, or activity.
Sign appendage: A subordinate or accessory sign or object attached to a primary sign.
Sign, construction: A temporary, nonportable, on-site sign indicating the names of architects, engineers, builders, contractors, or craftsmen involved in the design and construction of a project.
Signs, church or institutional: Any structure, device, display board, screen, surface, or wall with characters, letters or illustrations placed thereon, by any method or means, showing names, activities and services provided by a church or other public services nonprofit institution; such sign shall be located on property occupied by such church or nonprofit institution. Portable signs are not considered church or institutional signs.
Sign, damaged: Any sign which has become deteriorated or damaged and requires reconditioning to restore it to an average, normal state of repair, when such conditioning requires the replacement of broken or damaged glass or other materials, or the straightening of any sign support or other portion of the sign when the sign structure is leaning to such a degree as to be in danger of falling or collapse. A sign shall only be considered damaged whenever the cost of repairing such damage is equal to or greater than fifty (50) sixty (60) percent of the cost, excluding sign supports, of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location.
Sign, electrical: Any illuminated sign or sign utilizing any electrical devices.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 20 of 56
Sign, freestanding: Any sign permanently affixed to the ground and which is not affixed to a building and which is not used for off-premises advertising.
Sign, freestanding (monument): A sign with a display surface that is an integral part of the support structure, which in turn is affixed or permanently fixed in the ground, as contrasted to any other freestanding sign that has separate support or supports attached to the display surface. For the purposes of interpretation in this subpart, “freestanding signs” shall include monument signs, but “freestanding monument signs” shall not include other types of freestanding signs.
Sign, garage sale: Any sign for sale of twenty (20) or more items of used personal property from a residence, including “patio sales,” “porch sales” and “driveway sales,” “yard sales,” and similar terminology.
Sign, government: Any sign indicating public works projects, public services or other programs or activities conducted or required by any governmental subdivision.
Sign, Institutional: Any freestanding or monument sign near or in close proximity to a main entrance way to a church, non-profit institution, or educational institution.
Sign, instructional (private): A permanent, on-site sign used to provide warning, identification, information, or directions such as traffic signs, parking signs, and loading area signs.
Sign, moving message: Any sign which has automatically changing advertising or which has any moving message.
Sign, multi-party: Any sign which is used or intended to be used for advertising purposes by more than one business entity located on the development site.
Sign, neighborhood entrance: a monument sign located near or in close proximity to the entrance of a residential neighborhood.
Sign, off-site advertising or billboard: A sign which advertises or directs attention to commodities, services, entertainment, business, or activities offered off the premises where the sign is located. This category includes the conventional painted bulletin or poster panel. A sign displaying advertising copy that pertains to a business, person, organization, activity, event, place, service and/or product not principally located or primarily manufactured or sold on the premises upon which the sign is located. Also referred to as Off-Premise Sign.
Sign, on-site business and/or identification: A sign directing attention to or presenting commodities, services, or activities conducted, sold or offered on the premises where the sign is located, and may include name of the establishment or business offering such commodities services or activities. An on-site sign which does not advertise commodities or services, but calls attention to name and/or address of the business located on the premises is included within this category. A sign identifying or advertising a business, person, organization, activity, service, and/or product which is installed and maintained on the same premises as the subject it advertises. Also referred to as an On-Premise Sign.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 21 of 56
Sign, political or noncommercial: A sign erected on private property by or with approval of the property owner solely for the purpose of advocating certain political candidates; or for a specific identifiable date or certain election; or propositions. This definition shall not apply to portable signs.
Sign, portable: A sign which is not designed or manufactured to be permanently anchored or affixed to the ground, building or other structure, but rather is designed or primarily used as a sign which is movable from place to place and which includes but is not limited to signs affixed to a trailer or other portable structure and “A” frame or sandwich signs.
Sign, nonportable: A sign designed or manufactured to be anchored or affixed to the ground, buildings or other structures in a manner restricting easy movement from place to place. Nonportable signs do not include portable signs which have had wheels removed or have been modified in such a way as to be anchored to the ground or other structures by means of chains, cables, stakes, or similar devices unless such modifications will prohibit removal of the sign and reinstallation at another location. Nonportable signs may, however, include signs utilizing posts, poles, beams, and similar structural components that may be affixed to the ground in a temporary fashion. Nonportable signs may also include signs utilizing braces, hangers, wall anchors and similar structural components that may be affixed to buildings or other structures in a temporary fashion. In either case, nonportable signs will conform to the Uniform Building Code.
Sign, realty: A sign located on real property that is for rent, lease or sale, said sign being for the purpose of advertising the rent, lease or sale of said property.
Sign, special development temporary: A temporary, nonportable on-site sign indicating the name of a project or subdivision under development, including the name and address of the project developer, contractors and builders involved in the construction of the development.
Sign, structural: A nonportable sign other than wall signs.
Sign, temporary: Any sign which is displayed, as permitted under the terms and provisions of this subpart, for a limited period of time for the purposes of sales promotion or providing information concerning an event or activity occurring upon the property where the sign is displayed, which sign shall be removed promptly upon the conclusion of any such sale, event or activity. A sign, banner, pennant, valance or other device constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, or other like materials, with or without a frame, and any type of sign that is not permanently attached to the ground, wall or building, and which is intended to be displayed for a short period of time (i.e., changeable; not permanent).
Sign, wall: Any sign affixed flat against and parallel to a building wall. For the purpose of this definition, wall shall include window areas.
Visibility triangle: A triangle formed by a diagonal line extending through two (2) points on the two (2) curb lines or edge of pavement line thirty (30) feet from the street corner intersection.
Sec. 23-129. 4.2.8.4 General provisions.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 22 of 56
All signs, other than address identification signs, shall pertain to the identification of the primary uses, by name of the occupant or business, and/or primary services provided or primary products sold on the premises. All other signs may be considered off-site advertising (or billboards) signs, other noncommercial, and private instructional signs as hereinafter provided.
Where applicable, a sign shall, at the time the sign is permitted, meet all requirements of Chapter 8 of this Code of Ordinances and any other applicable requirements of said Code.
Where commercial, advertising or business signs are allowed, then non-commercial speech shall be automatically allowed subject to the same regulation applicable to advertising or business signs.
All signs, including those painted on the walls of buildings, shall be permanently maintained in a safe, structurally sound condition, and in good repair including the replacement of defective parts, painting, repainting, cleaning and other acts required for the maintenance of said sign. All braces, bolts, clips, supporting frames and fastenings shall be free from deterioration, termite infestation, rot or loosening. All signs shall further be maintained in compliance with any additional requirements for signs as are specified in Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Abilene and other applicable requirements of said Code.
No sign in any zoning district shall project into the public right-of-way of any street or alley except in the central business district. In a central business district, no sign shall extend outward from any building face into the public right-of-way for a distance of more than within two (2) feet of the street curb, nor shall be erected so as to overhang a sidewalk or public right-of-way at a height of less than eight (8) feet.
(1) Exception: Waiting benches and other items providing a public service have advertising affixed to them shall be considered signs and allowed in the public right-of-way, subject to the approval of the city council, to include issuance of a street use license, and all other conditions deemed appropriate to ensure the public safety.
Every business location shall be adequately identified by a street address, i.e. street numbers and/or street name, which is clearly visible from the street adjacent to the front entrance of such business. However, the area of a sign which is erected for the sole purpose of providing such street address identification shall not be subtracted from or count against the total allowable sign area requirements for the several districts as hereinafter specified in this subpart. Further, such street address identification may be incorporated into any sign permitted under the terms and provisions of this subpart so long as such street address identification does not increase the maximum allowable sign area of any sign by more than ten (10) percent. The incorporation of such street address identification shall not change the height or setback requirements from the maximums or minimums allowable for such sign prior to incorporation thereof.
All lighting shall be so shielded as to prevent intensive light or glare on adjacent property and roadways.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 23 of 56
Fees and charges for services provided by the city (permit fees, hauling and storage fees) shall be determined from time to time by city council and placed on file in the office of the city secretary.
Sec. 23-146. 4.2.8.5 Permits required.
Except as provided in section 23-147 4.2.8.6, a permit shall be obtained from the city for a proposed sign.
(a) Structural signs. For purposes of design of structural members on signs, the current Uniform Building Code of the city shall be utilized.
(b) Electrical signs. All illuminated signs or signs utilizing any electrical devices shall require an electrical permit and shall be wired in accordance with the electrical code of the city.
(c) Permit to enlarge, alter, repair, etc. No sign shall be altered, rebuilt, enlarged, extended, replaced or relocated, nor shall sign faces be renewed or neon tubing be rearranged when the values of such work exceeds sixtyfifty (6050) percent of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location, except upon the issuance of a permit, and all work done under such permit shall be in conformity with the requirements of this chapter.
The changing of movable parts of signs which are designed for changing, or the repainting of display matter or the repairing of damaged neon tubing while a sign is in place shall not be deemed to be alterations for the purpose of this section.
(d) Construction time limitations. Construction activities pertaining to permanent off-site signs must commence within thirty (30) days of the date of the sign application permit as filed with the city. Construction will be completed within forty-five (45) days of the above date. Failure to comply with these provisions will result in the revocation of the permit application. In addition, the same applicant may not reapply for another sign permit at the location concerned for a period of six (6) months.
Sec. 23-147. 4.2.8.6 Signs exempted from permit requirements.
(a) No permit shall be required to erect any of the signs set forth in this section:
(1) Signs indicating only the name and/or address of the occupants of residential units;
(2) Non-illuminated signs located on private property that are no greater than six (6) square feet in area;
(2) Temporary signs;
(3) Signs in residential zoning;
(4) Non-illuminated temporary signs placed in or on windows of structures, except as provided in section 4.2.9.1, special regulations for portable signs;
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Underline
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 24 of 56
(3) Non-illuminated signs pertaining to construction on residential property upon which the signs are located, as permitted under section 23-161;
(4) Non-illuminated political signs located on private property in residential zones or on private property in commercial/office zones, for the purpose of advocating certain political candidates, or for a specific, identifiable date or certain election, or propositions. This provisions shall not apply to portable signs.
No person shall place any political sign on any telegraph utility, telephone or electric light pole located on any street, alley sidewalk or park or parkway within the city. Furthermore, political signs in any residential area shall not:
a. Be placed or erected within any public right-of-way;
b. Exceed a size of six (6) square feet;
c.(c) Be posted or erected more than forty-five (45) days prior to the election to which they pertain or be allowed to remain posted or Signs related to an event or occurrence on a specific date must be removed no later than erected more than fourteen (14) days subsequent to such event or occurrence election.
(5)Non-illuminated temporary business promotional signs placed in or on windows of structures in commercial/office use, except as provided in section 23-171, special regulations for portable signs;
(6) Non-illuminated community service signs placed in or on windows of structures in commercial/office use.
Sec. 23-148. 4.2.8.7 Prohibited signs.
The following signs shall be prohibited in all zoning districts:
(a) Signs or posters of miscellaneous character, not otherwise regulated, which are tacked, painted, pasted or otherwise affixed to trees, poles, posts, fences or other structures in rights-of-way or easements;
(b) Banners, pennants, searchlights, twirling signs or any other advertising sign of a similar nature, located upon the sidewalk, curb or right-of-way;
(c) Flags, banners, or pennants which obstruct the view of traffic;
(d) Any signs which resemble official traffic-control signs, signals or devices, which bear the words, “Stop,” “Go Slow,” “Caution,” “Danger,” “Warning,” or similar words;
(e) Signs which, by reason of their size, location, content, coloring, manner of illumination, or devices causing motion or movement may be confused with or construed as traffic-control signs,
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 25 of 56
signals or devices, or the lights of an emergency or road equipment vehicle, or which hide from view any traffic-control or street signs, signals or devices; or any sign which may, in the opinion of the director of traffic and transportation city manager or his or her designee, create or cause a hazard;
(f) Any sign or advertising device attached to or located on any vehicle or trailer parked on a public right-of-way or public property for the basic purpose of direction, advertising, etc.
(1) Exception: This subsection shall not be construed so as to prohibit typical vehicular signage such as is lettered on a commercial vehicle;
(g) Any sign which emits audible sound, odor, or visible matter.
(h) No person shall place any political sign on any telegraph utility, telephone or electric light pole located on any street, alley sidewalk or park or parkway within the city. Furthermore, political signs in any residential area shall not:
(a) Be placed or erected within any public right-of-way;
(b) Exceed a size of six (6) square feet;
Sec. 23-149. 4.2.8.8 Bonding.
Performance guarantee. No permit for the installation, erection, and/or maintenance of signs shall be issued to any person or entity until a performance guarantee has been filed with the City of Abilene to guarantee performance under Chapter 23 of the City Code. Said guarantee shall be in the form of a bond issued by a corporate surety, licensed to do business in the State of Texas, or an individual bond, or any other acceptable financial guarantee (such as a letter of credit or cashiers check) shall be approved by the city manager or his or her designee and be in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). Said guarantee shall insure that the permittee shall install, erect, repair, and/or demolish signs in accordance with the provisions of this and all other applicable ordinances of the city in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the prevailing standards of the trade. Upon final approval of sign installation, erection, repair and/or demolition, the permittee shall be released from the obligation of the performance guarantee.
(1) Exception: Wall signs shall be exempted from bonding requirements.
Sec. 23-161. 4.2.8.9 Area, height, placement and number.
(a) All nonportable signs not specifically exempted from permits (by the terms of section 23-147 4.2.8.6) shall be permitted only for the purposes identified in this section 23-161 and within the limitations prescribed by this section.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 26 of 56
(b) Area shall be considered to be the entire area within any geometric figure, including, but not limited to, all elements of the matter displayed, but not including blank masking, frames, or structured elements outside the sign bearing no advertising or graphic matter.
(c) Height shall be considered to be the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is higher, and that point on the crown of the street which is nearest to the point on the sign which is used to establish the setback of the sign, as setback is herein defined. For signs located two hundred (200) feet or further from a street, height shall be considered to be the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is higher, and the highest adjacent grade. Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the structural support of the sign.
(d) Setback shall be considered to mean a line parallel to, and the required distance from, the lot frontage adjacent to any street abutting the lot or tract in question, or a line parallel to and the required distance from any lot abutting the side of the lot or tract in question. For purposes of determining the requirements of this section, no portion of any sign or its support shall project or extend beyond the required setback line.
(e) Visibility triangle shall be considered to mean a triangle formed by a diagonal line extending through two (2) points on the two (2) curb lines or edge of pavement line thirty (30) feet from the street corner intersection. No sign or supporting structure shall be placed within the visibility triangle unless there is a minimum height of eight (8) feet from the ground to the lowest point on the sign or structure projecting over the triangle. In no instance, however, shall such projections extend or project beyond the required setbacks.
(f) Sign standards. Signs shall meet the standards delineated in the following table and the following footnotes referenced in the table:
(1) Off-site advertising signs are prohibited within the city limits of the City of Abilene and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except as specifically authorized below:
(a) Off-site advertising signs are only permitted within the following zoning districts: General Retail (GR) Shopping Center (SC), General Commercial (GC), Heavy Commercial (HC), Light Industrial (LI), Heavy Industrial (HI), and Agricultural-Open Space (AO). Off-site advertising signs are only permitted within the AO district with a special exception granted by the board of adjustment. In determining the suitability of a site within the AO district, the board shall consider the proximity of the proposed location to existing or proposed residential uses as may be indicated on the zoning map of the City of Abilene or any land use plans that have been approved by either the planning and zoning commission or the city council.
(b) Regulation of Type I signs:
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 27 of 56
i. Type I signs are those located along and oriented to a thoroughfare designated as a freeway or expressway in the city’s adopted Thoroughfare Plan and are only permitted in the following locations:
Interstate Highway 20;
US Highway 83;
Loop 322.
ii. Type I signs shall have a maximum area of 672 square feet and a maximum height of 42 feet, 6 inches or such height so that the bottom of the sign face is 8 feet higher than the adjacent main-traveled way, as defined by the Texas Department of Transportation, whichever is higher.
(c) Regulation of Type II signs:
i. Type II signs are those located along and oriented to a thoroughfare designated as an arterial or collector in the city’s adopted Thoroughfare Plan and are only permitted in the following locations:
US Highways 83/277;
US Highways 83/84;
Ambler Avenue;
North 10th Street;
North 1st Street;
East Highway 80;
South 1st Street;
South 7th Street;
East South 11th Street;
South 14th Street;
Texas Avenue;
South 27th Street;
Industrial Blvd.;
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 28 of 56
Rebecca Lane;
Antilley Road;
Southwest Drive;
Pioneer Drive;
Mockingbird Lane;
Barrow Street;
Sayles Blvd;
Buffalo Gap Road;
Grape Street;
Treadaway Blvd/Pine Street (Business 83);
Judge Ely Blvd;
Ridgemont Drive;
Catclaw Drive;
Pine Street;
Willis Street;
Leggett Drive.
ii. Type II signs shall have a maximum area of 378 square feet and a maximum height of 35 feet.
(2) Spacing and separation of off-site advertising signs shall be based on the following:
(a) Signs shall be separated from other off-site advertising signs on the same side of the street by a minimum distance of 1,500 feet on interstate and primary highways, as designated by the Texas Department of Transportation.
(b) Signs shall be separated from other off-site advertising signs on the same side of the street by a minimum distance of 750 feet when not on an interstate or primary highway.
(c) Signs shall be separated from other off-site advertising signs in any direction by a minimum of 250 feet.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 29 of 56
(d) No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than 135 feet from a lot in a Residential Single Family (RS), Mobile Home (MH), or Multi Family (MF) RM-3 district.
(e) No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than 400 feet from a lot in a Residential Single Family (RS), Mobile Home (MH), or Multi Family (MF) RM-3 district when adjacent to roadways designated as interstate or primary.
Sign Classification
Permitted Zoning Districts
Maximum Area
Maximum Height
Minimum Setback Required
Number and/or Spacing Limitations
Illumination Permitted
Motion Permitted
Additional Require-
ments
O
F
F
S
I
T
E
Type I SC GR
GC
HC
LI
HI
AO (SE)
(1)
672 sq. ft.
42.5 ft. or bottom of sign 8 ft. above primary roadway
(1), (5), (6)
10 feet if abutting MF RM-1, RM-2, CU, or AO
1,500 ft. spacing on same side of street
250 ft. radial spacing
(2)
Yes Yes Permit Required
(1)
Type II SCGR
GC
HC
LI
HI
AO (SE)
(1)
378 sq. ft.
35 ft.
(1), (5), (6)
10 feet if abutting MFMD RM-1, RM-2, CU, or AO
750 ft. spacing on same side of street, except 1,500 ft. on interstate or primary
250 ft. radial spacing
(2)
Yes Yes Permit Required
(1)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 30 of 56
O
N
S
I
T
E
Business and/or Identifi-cation
AO 700 sq. ft.
35 ft.
(5), (6)
10 ft. from property line
One per business or activity
Yes Yes Permit Required
MU
O
36 sq. ft. 12 ft 10 ft. from property line
One per business or activity
Yes Yes Permit Required
SC GR
CB
GC
HC
LI
HI
300 sq. ft. (no limitation for wall signs)
50 ft, except in CB (no restrictions)
(5), (6)
(4) One freestanding sign per business per street frontage
Yes Yes Permit Required
LC
PI LI
100 sq. ft. (no limitation for wall signs)
36 ft.
(5), (6)
(4) One freestanding sign per business per street frontage
Yes Yes Permit Required
RM MH CU
20 sq. ft.
(3)
10 ft.
(3)
10 feet from property line
One per business or activity per street frontage
Yes Yes Permit Required
RS 6 sq. ft.
(3)
(3) (4) One per premises
(3)
No
(3)
No
(3)
Instruc-
tional, Private
All Districts, except RS
8 sq. ft. 10 ft. As needed
Yes Yes Permit Required
Con- All Districts
80 sq. ft. 15 ft. 10 feet from all propert
n/a Yes Yes Maximum Duration
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 31 of 56
struction
y lines, except in CB
: until approx. 90% complete
Special Devel- opment
All Districts
80 sq. ft. 15 ft. 10 feet from all property lines, except in CB
n/a Yes Yes Permit required if electrical
Footnotes:
(1) No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than one hundred thirty-five (135) feet from a lot in a residential single-family or MF RM-3 district.
No off-site advertising signs shall be permitted less than four hundred (400) feet from a lot in a residential single-family or MF RM-3 district when adjacent to interstate or primary road systems.
In AO zoning districts, off-site advertising signs may be permitted upon issuance of special exemption by the zoning board of adjustment after a public hearing. In determining the suitability of a site for placement of an off-site advertising sign, the board shall consider the proximity of the proposed location to existing or proposed residential uses as may be indicated on the zoning map of the City of Abilene or any land use plans that have been approved by either the planning and zoning commission or the city council. Setbacks for off-site advertising signs on interstate/primary roads shall be established by the State of Texas.
(2) The minimum separation shall be measured from signs on the same side of the street.
(3) Signs on developing property shall be signs on property under current construction or property that is being promoted in advance of sale and development.
(3) Freestanding
Institutional signs and neighborhood entrance signs (identifying churches and other public service non-profit institutions) located within residential districts are permitted to be up to 80 square feet in area and up to 25 feet in height. Only one such institutions sign are is permitted only one freestanding sign per street front. In addition, such institutions shall be permitted only one wall sign (for identification purposes) is permitted per street frontage so long as such sign exceeds no more than 100 square feet in area. Such signs shall be permitted to be illuminated and may be an electronic message sign. A permit from the city shall be required for installation of all signs identifying churches and other institutions within residential districts. Except as
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 32 of 56
otherwise stated above, all other requirements for identification signs in residential districts shall be applicable to those identifying churches and other institutions.
(44) Front setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from back of curb or edge of pavement where there is no curb; provided, however, that no sign shall project into the public right-of-way of any street or alley except in the central business district as provided in section 2.3.3.7 23-129(d), general provisions.
Side setbacks shall be ten (10) feet from any side abutting a lot or tract in an AO, RS, MD, MF, RM, MH, or CU district. In all other cases there shall be no side setback.
(55) Freestanding signs shall have a minimum grade clearance of eight (8) feet. Freestanding monument signs shall not exceed a height of forty-two (42) inches.
Exception: Freestanding signs (including monument signs) set back a minimum twenty-five (25) feet from all street-side property boundaries do not need a minimum grade clearance of eight (8) feet. A sign so located may also exceed the forty-two-inch height limitation, but shall not exceed the maximum area or height of signs allowed.
(66) Off site advertising in the PZ (Park Zone) district is only permitted if physically attached to arenas, rodeo grounds, stadiums, gymnasiums, ballfields or fairgrounds.
Sec. 23-171. 4.2.8.10 Special regulations for portable signs.
(a) Permits. Portable signs are prohibited in residential areas, including multi-family and mobile home developments. Prior to the use or placement of any portable sign, a permit must be obtained pursuant to the following terms and conditions. Permits for portable signs may be issued to persons other than sign contractors, and no bonds are required.
(1) A portable sign permit may be issued for shopping centers, commercial, retail, or office developments; however, only one (1) portable sign per business location is allowed.
(2) Portable signs shall be located no closer than ten (10) feet to the street and a greater distance if necessary to be located off of the right-of-way. In no case shall the portable sign be located within the public right-of-way. Further, said signs shall not be located in the area designated as the intersection visibility area.
(3) No portable sign shall be placed so as to project into the public right-of-way of any street or alley.
(4) Portable signs shall permanently display on the sign in easily readable form the name, address, city, zip code and telephone number of the owner of said sign.
(5) Portable signs may be internally or indirectly lighted. Any accessory lighting, if present, surrounding the message display area, shall contain only lamps not to exceed
Formatted: Left, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: singleFormatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 ptFormatted: Underline
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 33 of 56
sixty (60) watts. All portable signs utilizing electrical power shall be wired in accordance with the City of Abilene's electrical code. Electrical outlets serving the sign must be located entirely beneath the frame of the sign and must be equipped with a ground-fault interrupter device.
(6) Unsafe signs listed in subsection (b) shall not be eligible for a permit.
(7) A permit shall be obtained for each portable sign.
(8) If required, each portable sign shall satisfy any permit requirements in the building code and electrical code.
(9) Church and school facilities located in residential areas shall be allowed one (1) portable sign for not more than six (6) nonconsecutive two-week periods during any calendar year, regardless of street frontage. This provision shall not exempt the requirements for permitting described herein.
For purposes of this section, residential areas shall be defined as all single-family, multi-family and mobile home zoning districts.
(10) Portable signs shall be allowed in residential multi-family districts, for purposes other than church or school identification as provided for above, subject to a special exception being granted by the board of adjustment. As with any special exception request, the board of adjustment may attach any conditions to its approval deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) Unsafe signs prohibited. It is hereby expressly declared that the following signs are in fact unsafe signs causing immediate danger, and it shall be the duty of the owner of the sign, the lessee of the sign, the owner of the property on which the sign is located, and the owner and manager of any business advertised on the sign to immediately remove the sign, or correct the unsafe conditions, and the refusal to do so will constitute a violation of this section.
(1) Any portable sign erected, placed, used, altered, or maintained in the public right-of-way.
(2) Any portable sign or sign-supporting structure which is located within the area defined as the intersection visibility triangle.
(3) Any portable sign which becomes insecure damaged, as defined in section 4.2.8.3, in danger of falling or otherwise unsafe, or any portable sign which is erected or maintained in violation of the provisions of the building code or electrical code.
(4) Any portable sign located nearer than ten (10) feet from the street.
(5) Any portable sign which is located or constructed so as to interfere with or confuse the control of traffic on the public streets.
Formatted: Underline
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 34 of 56
(6) Any portable sign which resembles an official traffic sign or signal or which bears the words “Stop,” “Go Slow,” “Caution,” “Danger,” “Warning,” or similar words is prohibited.
(c) Impoundment Enforcement:
(1) Any portable sign erected in violation of this provision shall be an illegal sign pursuant to section 4.2.8.16(a) and may be removed by the city only in compliance with the provisions of that section. The owner or occupant of any property upon which there is located a sign in violation of this section or the owner or lessee of any portable sign, or the owner and manager of any business advertised on a portable sign which is in violation of this section as herein defined shall be given written notice by the city manager or his designee stating the nature of the violation and ordering that the violation be corrected or removed from said property within seventy-two (72) hours.
(2) Any portable sign that does not conform to the regulations prescribed in this Division and which existed lawfully on the date of adoption (i.e., on the effective date) of this Division, or amendment hereto, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign and may be removed by the city only in compliance with the provisions of section 4.2.8.16(b). If the owner, lessor, lessee, or the representative of the lessor or the owner and manager of any business advertised on a portable sign fails to remove such sign within seventy-two (72) hours of written notification, or by publication if the address is unknown, the portable sign may be removed by the city at the expense of the sign owner or the person erecting, leasing, using, or maintaining it.
(3) Any on premise portable sign that no longer advertises or identifies a use/business conducted on the property on which the sign is erected shall be an abandoned sign and may be removed by the city only in compliance with section 4.2.8.16(c). so removed from public or private property shall be stored or impounded by the city until all applicable charges have been paid, or until sixty (60) days have passed.
(4) If any sign remains unclaimed for a period of sixty (60) days after its removal, or if the removal and storage costs are not paid within such sixty-day period, the city may sell or otherwise dispose of the sign. In calculating the length of the storage period and the storage fee, the first working day after the date of the impoundment shall be considered day number one (1); thereafter, all days including weekends and holidays shall be counted.
(5) The city manager or his or her designee may enter upon private property which is accessible to the public for the purposes specified in this section to examine signs or their location, obtain information as to the ownership of signs and to remove or cause the removal of a sign declared to be a nuisance pursuant to this section.
(d) Appeal procedures. Appeals of the provisions of this section shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 23-184 4.2.8.17.
Formatted: Underline
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 35 of 56
(e) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to all portable signs in the city, and nonconforming status or rights will not be granted to existing portable signs.
Sec. 23-172. 4.2.8.11 Special regulations for electronic message signs.
In addition to any other requirements of this chapter, electronic message signs shall adhere to the following requirements:
(a) Operational limitations for on-premise signs over seventy-five (75) square feet in area or any off-premise sign.
(1) Such signs shall contain static messages only and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign or sign structure, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating, or varying of light intensity.
(2) Minimum display time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of eight (8) seconds.
(3) Transition. The transition from one sign message to another must occur within two (2) seconds and may not include flashing or appearance of motion, with the exception of a fade out or in, dissolve, or scroll that must be accomplished within the transition period.
(b) Operational limitations for all signs.
(1) Limitations. All such signs shall have no flashing or full motion video.
(2) Unless permitted as an off-premise sign, such signs shall not include off-premise advertising messages.
(c) Sign face limitations.
(1) Each sign structure is limited to not more than two (2) sides with one sign face per side.
(2) The entire sign face must comply with the operation limitations defined above and a sign face may not be apportioned into separate areas each acting as a separate sign face under these restrictions.
(d) Brightness.
(1) All such signs shall be equipped with light sensing devices or a scheduled dimming timer that will automatically dim the intensity of the light emitted by the sign during ambient low-light conditions and at night so that the sign does not exceed the maximum brightness levels allowed in this section.
Formatted: Underline
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 36 of 56
(2) Maximum brightness shall not exceed seven thousand (7,000) nits when measured from the sign’s face at its maximum brightness during daylight hours and shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) nits when measured from the sign’s face at its maximum brightness at night.
(3) If such sign is located within one hundred (100) feet of a property with residential zoning, the sign must be oriented such that no portion of the electronic sign face is visible from a residentially-zoned property or the brightness is reduced to no more than two hundred fifty (250) nits at night.
(4) Prior to the issuance of a permit for such sign, the applicant shall provide written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory preset not to exceed the levels specified above.
(e) The city may order a sign’s brightness reduced, its minimum display time increased, or other operational characteristics altered if the director of public works, or city manager or his or her designee, finds that it interferes with or poses a traffic safety hazard to the operation of vehicles. The City may not require an alteration of a sign that would make the sign ineffective for its intended purpose, such as by substantially impairing visibility of the sign.
(f) All such signs shall be turned off or display a blank screen when malfunctioning.
Sec. 23-181. 4.2.8.12 Enforcement responsibility.
The city manager shall designate a member of the city’s staff who shall have the responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this subpart. References herein made to the performance of certain functions by the city shall be deemed references to performance by the city manager’s designee. The duties of such designee shall include not only the issuance of permits as required by this subpart, but also the responsibility of ensuring that all signs conform with this subpart and with any other applicable laws, requirements and regulations of this Code of Ordinances or of the City of Abilene and that all signs for which permits are required do in fact have permits. The city manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to adopt regulations and procedures not inconsistent with the terms of this subpart necessary to implement the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 23-182. 4.2.8.13 Violations.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use or maintain any sign or structure in the city, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this subpart. The regulations of this subpart are not intended to permit any violation of the provisions of any other lawful ordinance or regulation of the city.
Sec. 23-183. 4.2.8.14 Stop orders, revocation of permit; repair or removal required.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 37 of 56
The city shall have the power to issue stop orders, to require the repair or removal of certain signs and/or to revoke sign permits, as provided in this section. In so doing, the city shall comply with all procedural requirements specified in this section for the giving of notice, the issuance of orders, the removal of signs and storage and/or sale thereof by the city, and the conduct of hearings on permit revocations.
(a) Stop orders. If the city shall determine that work on any sign is being performed without a permit or in a dangerous or unsafe manner, upon written notice and issuance of a stop order by the city, such work shall be immediately stopped. Such notice shall be given to the owner of the property or to his agent, or to the person doing the work, and shall state the conditions under which work may be resumed. However, where an emergency exists, written notice shall not be required. Following the issuance of a stop order, the city shall initiate proceedings to revoke any permit issued for the work covered by such stop order unless the cause of the stop order is resolved to the city’s satisfaction.
(b) Revocation of permit. The city shall have, and is hereby granted, the power and authority to revoke any and all permits authorized by this Code for violation of the terms and provisions of this Code, subject to the procedural requirements of this Code for notice and hearing. Permits may be revoked if they were issued in error or as a result of misinformation or misinterpretation of the facts associated with their issuance.
(c) Repair or removal required. The city is authorized to require the repair or removal of signs within the city under the following conditions. Should the responsible party or parties fail or refuse, after due notice, to bring a sign into conformity with this Code or to remove the same, the city is authorized to remove said sign and to store and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedural requirements of this Code of Ordinances. The city shall also file against the property a lien in the amount of the cost of all such work.
(1c) Signs erected without permit. In the event any sign shall be erected within the city without a permit, when such sign shall require a permit, the city is authorized to remove said sign and to store and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedural requirements of this Code of Ordinances.
(d) All abandoned signs shall be brought into compliance within forty-five (45) days from the date of notification. Compliance with the ordinance shall be accomplished by painting over or removing the face of the sign until such time as the sign correctly directs or exhorts any person or advertises a bona fide business lessor, owner, product, service, or activity.
(e) All damaged signs shall be repaired within forty-five (45) days from the date of notification.
A sign shall be considered damaged whenever the cost of repairing such damage is equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent of the cost, excluding sign supports, of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 38 of 56
(f) Nonconforming signs. A legally nonconforming sign that has been blown down or otherwise destroyed or dismantled for any purpose may be re-erected to its original condition, size, and location.
(g) Hazardous signs. Any sign which in the opinion of the city manager or his designee clearly presents an immediate hazard to the public must be removed or repaired upon notice to the owner of the sign, the lessee of the sign, the owner of the property on which the sign is located, or the owner and manager of any business advertised on the sign to immediately remove the sign or correct the unsafe condition.
(h) Signs not properly maintained. If the city shall determine that any sign is not being maintained as required by the terms and provisions of this Code, the city shall give written notice to the owner or lessee thereof to so maintain the sign or to remove the sign.
(i) Unlawful signs. Should any sign be installed, erected, constructed or maintained in violation of any of the terms of this Code, the city shall give written notice to the owner, lessee or person responsible for said sign, ordering that the sign be altered so as to comply with this Code or to remove the sign.
(1) If a sign is determined to have been erected, installed, or constructed in violation of the regulations applicable at the time of its erection, installation, or construction, the city shall give written notice to the owner, lessee, or person responsible for said sign ordering that the sign be altered so as to comply with this Code or to remove the sign.
Section 4.2.8.15 Maintenance of Signs
Maintenance of Signs: All signs and sign support structures, including temporary and portable signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys and anchors, shall be kept in good repair and in a proper state of appearance and preservation. No sign will be allowed to be kept in a dilapidated, deteriorated, or unsightly condition, including that signs shall be free from cracked or peeling paint, discolored sign structure or lettering, and missing or damaged parts. Any nonconforming sign which the City determines is in an unacceptable dilapidated, deteriorated, or unsightly condition, to such an extent that the sign is determined to be damaged as defined in Section 4.2.8.3, shall be repaired or removed by the owner, agent or person having the beneficial use of the land, buildings or structure upon which such sign is located within forty five (45) days after written notification to do so.
Section 4.2.8.16 Illegal, Nonconforming, Unsafe, and Abandoned Signs
(a) Illegal Signs:
(1) Should any sign be installed, erected, constructed or maintained in violation of any of the terms of this Code, the City shall give written notice to the owner, lessee, or person responsible for the sign, ordering that the sign be altered so as to comply with this Code or to remove the sign.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 39 of 56
(2) The owner of, or the owner of property with, an illegal (either conforming or nonconforming) sign must apply for a permit from the City within ten (10) days of notification of non-compliance.
(3) If the owner has not obtained a permit for the illegal sign by the eleventh (11th) day following notification, the owner may be cited for noncompliance and/or the sign may be removed by the City at the expense of the owner.
(b) Nonconforming Signs: A sign that does not conform to the regulations prescribed in this Division and which existed lawfully on the date of adoption (i.e., on the effective date) of this Division, or amendment hereto, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign. A nonconforming sign shall be allowed to remain as is in the same location wherein it existed on the effective date of this Division subject to the following conditions.
(1) Minor changes or repair: Changing sign faces or minor repairs that do not change the structure or dimensions of the sign shall be allowed and shall not affect the nonconforming status of a sign.
(2) Removal: The right to continue all nonconforming signs shall cease and such sign shall be removed within forty-five (45) days after written notice, or the City may do so, whenever:
a. A sign is altered, moved or relocated without a permit pursuant to the provisions of this Division; or
b. A sign is damaged or destroyed when the cost of repairing the sign is more than sixty percent (60%) of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location; an existing nonconforming sign that is already in a dilapidated/deteriorated condition or that represents a public safety hazard as of the effective date of this Division of the Land Development Code, and the cost of repairing the sign is more than sixty percent (60%) of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location, must either be repaired/refinished to a reasonable state of repair or removed at the owner’s expense.
(3) Historic/Architectural Significance: Any sign designated by official action of the City as having special historic or architectural significance is exempt from the provisions of this Division regarding elimination of nonconforming signs. However, this in no way should be interpreted to supersede any safety or maintenance requirements.
(c) Abandoned Sign:
(1) Any on-premise sign that no longer advertises or identifies a use/business conducted on the property on which the sign is erected must have the sign copy covered or removed within 1 year after the business or uses advertised on the sign have been
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 40 of 56
discontinued, except in the case of a leased property, in which case such a sign shall not be allowed to remain on a property more than 2 years after the date the most recent tenant ceased to operate on the premises;
(2) Upon failure to comply with these provisions and after 45 days notice by the City, the City is hereby authorized to cause removal of such sign and/or sign copy, and any expense incident thereto shall be paid by the owner of the building, structure, or property on which the sign is located.
Sec. 23-184. 4.2.8.17 Appeals, interpretations, variances.
(a) Except as provided in this section, the zoning board of adjustment is authorized to hear and decide appeals related to permit applications, provide interpretation, and grant variances subject to the rules and procedures for the zoning board of adjustment as set forth in section 23-356.2.Chapter 1, Division 5, administration, of the zoning ordinance of the City of Abilene, Land Development CodeTexas, provided however:
(1) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance to the terms of this subpart the effect of which would allow erection or placement of any sign prohibited by section 23-148 4.2.8.7, prohibited signs.
(2) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance to the terms of this subpart the effect of which would allow placement of any sign in any district where such sign is prohibited in that district.
(3) The board of adjustment may not grant a variance which will allow any sign erected in violation of any previous ordinance in effect at the time of the sign’s erection to violate the terms of this subpart.
(4) The board of adjustment may not waive any requirement for any permit, bond, or inspection required under the terms of this subpart.
(5) The board of adjustment shall not hear any appeal, interpretation, or variance from the provisions of the building code of the city as they apply to the construction of any sign. In instances where such questions arise, it shall be the responsibility of the board of building standards of the city to hear and decide those questions in accordance with its rules and procedures.
(6) The board of adjustment shall not hear any appeal, interpretation, or variance from the provisions of the electrical code of the city as they apply to any electrical aspects of any sign. In instances where such questions arise, it shall be the responsibility of the board of electrical examiners of the city to hear and decide those questions in accordance with its rules and procedures.
(b) Any person who is required to remove or modify a portable sign as a result of section 23-171 4.2.8.10, special regulations for portable signs, may, within a seventy-two-hour period after
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 41 of 56
service of notice is given, request in writing a hearing to determine whether he or she is in violation of this subpart. If such hearing is requested, it will be held at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of adjustment subject to meeting the requirements of the Open Meetings Act and appropriate notice provisions.
(1) If the board of adjustment, after considering the evidence, decides that the sign in question is in fact in violation, then, the sign shall be removed or brought into compliance within seventy-two (72) hours from the time the board’s decision is rendered.
(2) This section shall not in any way negate the right of the city to immediately remove any portable sign creating a real and immediate danger to life or property.
Sec. 23-185. 4.2.8.18 Penalties and violations. Violations of provisions of this subpart or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with approval of variances) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this subpart or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined in accordance with section 1-9, general penalties, of this Code. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense.
The owner or occupant of any building, structure, premises, or part thereof, and any architect, builder, contractor, agent, or other person who commits, participates in, assists in, or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the penalties herein provided.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
It is further the intent and declared purpose of this ordinance that no offense committed, and no liability, penalty, or forfeiture, either civil or criminal, incurred prior to the time that the existing ordinance was repealed and such ordinance adopted shall be discharged or affected by such repeal, but prosecutions and suits for such offenses, liabilities, penalties, or forfeitures may be instituted, and causes presently in process may be prosecuted in all respects as if such prior ordinance had not been repealed.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 42 of 56
CHANGES TO SIGN ORDINANCE
1. On June 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion inReed v. Town of Gilbert, which substantively changed the ability oflocal government to regulate signs.
2. Specifically, the Court held that “content-based” regulation of signsby a local government implicates the First Amendment, ispresumptively unconstitutional, and must pass the “strict-scrutiny”test (compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored).
3. Regulation of a sign is “content-based” if you have to read or lookat the sign’s content to determine if it should be regulated.
4. Changes to the sign ordinance seek to comply with the Court’sruling in Reed.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 43 of 56
5. Additionally, the City seeks to move the Sign Regulations from the Code of Ordinances to the Land Development Code. Numbering has been modified to effect this changes.
6. Additionally, to dispense with the need to establish a SIGN BOARD, whose duty would be to determine what amount a sign owner should be compensated if a sign is required to be removed less than a year from notice of violation, the regulations have been modified to provide for removal after 1 year of notification of violation of regulation.
7. A sign may be removed immediately by the City if it is damaged or destroyed beyond more than 60% of cost to repair.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 44 of 56
8. Added a general provision to treat commercial and non-commercial speech similar:
Where commercial, advertising or business signs are allowed, then non-commercial speech shall be automatically allowed subject to the same regulation applicable to advertising or business signs.
9. Amended provision that fees are now established by City Council:
Fees and charges for services provided by the city (permit fees, hauling and storage fees) shall be determined from time to time by city council and placed on file in the office of the city secretary.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 45 of 56
Removed designation of political signs, and their regulation:
• No person shall place any political sign on any telegraph utility, telephone or electric light pole located on any street, alley sidewalk or park or parkway within the city. Furthermore, political signs in any residential area shall not:
• a. Be placed or erected within any public right-of-way;• b. Exceed a size of six (6) square feet;• c.(c) Be posted or erected more than forty-five (45) days prior to the
election to which they pertain or be allowed to remain posted or Signs related to an event or occurrence on a specific date must be removed no later than erected more than fourteen (14) days subsequent to such event or occurrence election.
• (5)Non-illuminated temporary business promotional signs placed in or on windows of structures in commercial/office use, except as provided in section 23-171, special regulations for portable signs;
• (6) Non-illuminated community service signs placed in or on windows of structures in commercial/office use.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 47 of 56
Moved a provision from signs exempt from permitting to the more appropriate Prohibited signs section:
No person shall place any political sign on any telegraph utility, telephone or electric light pole located on any street, alley sidewalk or park or parkway within the city. Furthermore, political signs in any residential area shall not:
(a) Be placed or erected within any public right-of-way;
(b) Exceed a size of six (6) square feet;
Added a provision for Development signs:
Signs on developing property shall be signs on property under current construction or property that is being promoted in advance of sale and development.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 48 of 56
Modified enforcement of sign violations, and prevent a need for a Sign Board:
Impoundment Enforcement:
(1) Any portable sign erected in violation of this provision shall be an illegal sign pursuant to section 4.2.8.16(a) and may be removed by the city only in compliance with the provisions of that section. The owner or occupant of any property upon which there is located a sign in violation of this section or the owner or lessee of any portable sign, or the owner and manager of any business advertised on a portable sign which is in violation of this section as herein defined shall be given written notice by the city manager or his designee stating the nature of the violation and ordering that the violation be corrected or removed from said property within seventy-two (72) hours.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 49 of 56
(2) Any portable sign that does not conform to the regulations described in this Division and which existed lawfully on the date of adoption (i.e., on the effective date) of this Division, or amendment hereto shall be deemed a nonconforming sign and may be removed by the city on in compliance with the provisions of section 4.2.8.16(b). If the owner, lessor, lessee, or the representative of the lessor or the owner and manager of any business advertised on a portable sign fails to remove such sign within seventy two (72) hours of written notification, or by publication if the address is unknown, the portable sign may be removed by the city at the expense of the sign owner or the person erecting, leasing, using, or maintaining it.
(3) Any on premise portable sign that no longer advertises or identifies a use/business conducted on the property on which the sign is erected shall be an abandoned sign and may be removed by the city only in compliance with section 4.2.8.16(c). So removed from public or private property shall be stored or impounded by the city until all applicable charges have been paid, or until sixty (60) days have passed.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 50 of 56
Made an addition to electronic signs regulation:
The City may not require an alteration of a sign that would make the sign ineffective for its intended purpose, such as by substantially impairing visibility of the sign.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 51 of 56
Added a new provision regarding Maintenance of signs:
Maintenance of Signs: All signs and sign support structures, including temporary and portable signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys and anchors, shall be kept in good repair and in a proper state of appearance and preservation. No sign will be allowed to be kept in a dilapidated, deteriorated, or unsightly condition, including that signs shall be free from cracked or peeling paint, discolored sign structure or lettering, and missing or damaged parts. Any nonconforming sign which the City determine is in an unacceptable dilapidated, deteriorated, or unsightly condition, to such an extent that the sign is determined to be damaged as defined in Section 4.2.8.3 , shall be repaired or removed by the owner, agent or person having the beneficial use of the land, buildings or structure upon which such sign is located within forty five (45) days after written notification to do so.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 52 of 56
Added provisions pertaining to Illegal, Nonconforming, Unsafe and Abandoned signs:
Illegal Signs:
(1) Should any sign be installed, erected, constructed or maintained in violation of any of the terms of this Code, the City shall give written notice to the owner, lessee, or person responsible for the sign, ordering that the sign be altered so as to comply with this Code or to remove the sign.
(2) The owner of, or the owner of property with, an illegal (either conforming or nonconforming) sign must apply for a permit from the City within ten (10) days of notification of non-compliance.
(3) If the owner has not obtained a permit for the illegal sign by the eleventh (11th) day following notification, the owner may be cited for noncompliance and/or the sign may be removed by the City at the expense of the owner.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 53 of 56
Nonconforming Signs: A sign that does not conform to the regulations prescribed in this Division and which existed lawfully on the date of adoption (i.e., on the effective date) of this Division, or amendment hereto, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign. A nonconforming sign shall be allowed to remain as is in the same location wherein it existed on the effective date of this Division subject to the following conditions.
(1) Minor changes or repair: Changing sign faces or minor repairs that do not change the structure or dimensions of the sign shall be allowed and shall not affect the nonconforming status of a sign.
(2) Removal: The right to continue all nonconforming signs shall cease and such sign shall be removed within forty-five (45) days after written notice, or the City may do so, whenever:
a. A sign is altered, moved or relocated without a permit pursuant to the provisions of this Division; or
b. A sign is damaged or destroyed when the cost of repairing the sign is more than sixty percent (60%) of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location; an existing nonconforming sign that is already in a dilapidated/deteriorated condition or that represents a public safety hazard as of the effective date of this Division of the Land Development Code, and the cost of repairing the sign is more than sixty percent (60%) of the cost of erecting a new sign of the same type at the same location, must either be repaired/refinished to a reasonable state of repair or removed at the owner’s expense.
(3) Historic/Architectural Significance: Any sign designated by official action of the City as having special historic or architectural significance is exempt from the provisions of this Division regarding elimination of nonconforming signs. However, this in no way should be interpreted to supersede any safety or maintenance requirements.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 54 of 56
Abandoned sign:
(1) Any on-premise sign that no longer advertises or identifies a use/business conducted on the property on which the sign is erected must have the sign copy covered or removed within 1 year after the business or uses advertised on the sign have been discontinued, except in the case of a leased property, in which case such a sign shall not be allowed to remain on a property more than 2 years after the date the most recent tenant ceased to operate on the premises;
(2) Upon failure to comply with these provisions and after 45 days notice by the City, the City is hereby authorized to cause removal of such sign and/or sign copy, and any expense incident thereto shall be paid by the owner of the building, structure, or property on which the sign is located.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Page 55 of 56
TO: Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Mr. Michael Rice, Assistant City Manager; Stanley Smith, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance: (First Reading) Amending Chapter 8, Article VI, Division 6, Section 8-553,"Authority of the Building Official," Code of Ordinances of the City of Abilene,designating code enforcement officials for administrative search warrants, providing aseverability clause, declaring a penalty, and calling for a public hearing on October 25,2018 (Michael Rice)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 18.05, provides that an Administrative Search Warrant may beobtained to gain access to a building or structure to inspect and investigate for substandard conditions if a Cityhas designated one or more code enforcement officials to execute the administrative warrant. The City ofAbilene has not made a designation under the Code of Criminal Procedures and is currently unable to obtain anadministrative search warrant for such purposes. Administrative search warrants to gain access to a building or structure to inspect and investigate forsubstandard conditions is a valuable tool for code enforcement when a property owner refuses access to thebuilding or structure, or when the owner cannot be located.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends passage of the Ordinance.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description Type
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 1 of 8
Ordinance Cover OrdinanceExhibit A ExhibitPresentation Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 2 of 8
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8, “CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS,”
ARTICLE VI, “CODES AND OTHER REGULATIONS,” DIVISION 6, “MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES,” SECTION 8-553, “AUTHORITY
OF BUILDING OFFICIAL,” PARAGRAPH (B), OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
ABILENE, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
WHEREAS, the Abilene Code of Ordinances regulates building standards and construction
regulations for structures within the City of Abilene; and
WHEREAS, in order to enforce the provisions of the City’s Code of Ordinances relating to such
building standards and construction regulations, certain code enforcement officials must at times
gain access to the interior of said buildings or structures; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure section 18.05 provides that an administrative
search warrant may be obtained to gain access to a structure if the City has designated one or more
code enforcement officials for the purpose of being issued said warrant; and
WHEREAS, the City’s ordinances currently do not provide such designation for administrative
search warrants to be issued to code enforcement officials in compliance with State law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ABILENE, TEXAS:
PART 1: That Chapter 8, Construction Regulations, Article VI, Codes and Other
Regulations, Division 6, Minimum Standards For Buildings and Structures, Section
8-553, Authority of Building Official, paragraph (b), of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Abilene, Texas, is hereby amended to read as set out in Exhibit A,
attached and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 2: That if the provisions of any section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause
of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such judgment shall not effect or invalidate the remainder of any section,
subsection, paragraph, subdivision, or clause of this ordinance.
PART 3: That any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this Ordinance
shall be deemed to have committed a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall be fined in accordance with Chapter 1 (Section 1-9) of this Code.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 3 of 8
PASSED ON FIRST READING this 9th day of October, 2018.
A notice of the time and place, where and when said ordinance would be given a public
hearing and considered for final passage was published in the Abilene Reporter-News, a daily
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Abilene, said publication being on the 21st day of
October, 2018, the same being more than 24 hours prior to a public hearing being held in the
Council Chamber of City Hall in Abilene, Texas, at 4:30 p.m. on the 25th day of October, 2018, to
permit the public to be heard. Said Ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10)
days after its publication the newspaper, as provided by Section 19 of the Charter of the City of
Abilene.
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING this 25th day of October, 2018.
ATTEST:
______________________________ ______________________________
CITY SECRETARY MAYOR
______________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Sec. 8-553. Authority of building official.
(b) The building official is authorized to make inspections pursuant to complaints or visual observations of deficiencies, to determine the condition of all existing residential and nonresidential structures, and all premises located within the city without prior notice to the owner, manager, or occupant of the property. If the property is occupied, the building official shall present credentials to the occupant and request entry. If unoccupied, the building official must first make reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having control. If entry is refused, the building official, or his or her designee who is a code enforcement official, shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including making application for an administrative search warrant pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure section 18.05, unless an exception to the warrant requirement exists.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 5 of 8
Administrative Search Warrant
1. The City’s Code of Ordinances regulates building and constructionstandards.
2. The Board of Building Standards (Board) hears cases regardingsubstandard buildings and structures.
3. In order for the Board to have accurate and updated informationregarding the status of an allegedly dilapidated or substandardstructure, the City’s Building Official may need to gain access to theinterior of such structures.
4. Access may be obtained by consent of the owner. However, in somecases, access is refused or the building is abandoned, requiring theBuilding Official to obtain a warrant.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 6 of 8
5. State Law provides for the granting of an administrative search warrant if the City has designated “one or more code enforcement officials for the purpose of being issued a search warrant.” Tex. Code of Crim. Pro. Section 18.05.
6. Several comparative cities include such a designation in their ordinances:
- San Angelo
- Lubbock
- Odessa
- Wichita Falls
7. Abilene’s ordinance currently does not include a specific designation that follows the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 7 of 8
8. The ordinance change will allow administrative search warrants to be obtained from the Abilene Municipal Court.
9. Administrative search warrants obtained through this process will only be for the purpose of searching for evidence of substandard conditions of buildings or structures, and not for seizure of evidence related to a criminal case.
10. QUESTIONS?
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 10, Page 8 of 8
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert Hanna, City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive Report, Hold Discussion and Provide Direction/Take Action on the FinalReport of the Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit (Robert Hanna)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The City engaged Moss Adams to conduct a performance audit evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness ofHOT-funded expenditures by the City of Abilene, the Abilene Chamber of Commerce, the Abilene Conventionand Visitors Bureau, and the the Abilene Cultural Affairs Council in promoting, encouraging, and increasinghotel night stays. The audit also assessed the adequacy of controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of HOTrevenues. The City formally engaged the services of Moss Adams on March 30, 2018. Representatives from Moss Adams will be present to deliver the presentation to Council. The City Manager has already directed City staff to review the findings and develop an internal implementationstrategy for those findings focused on the City of Abilene. The City Manager has had discussions with the Chamber of Commerce on the findings focused on theChamber and the Chamber affiliates. The City Attorney and the City Manager have had brief conversations onrestarting building lease discussions. In short, the City Manager believes the performance audit clearly states that Abilene's hotel occupancy taxstrategy is effectively increasing hotel night stays. Furthermore, the audit identifies several administrativelyappropriate and prudent steps that should be addressed to maintain accountability and transparency in the useof hotel occupancy taxes.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends acceptance of the report.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 1 of 69
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeAudit Report Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 2 of 69
FINAL REPORT FOR
CITY OF ABILENE Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit
August 31, 2018
Moss Adams LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 302-6500
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 3 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary 1
| A. Background, Scope, and Methodology 1
| B. Summary of Results 1
II. Background, Scope, and Methodology 5
| A. Background 5
| B. Scope and Methodology 6
III. Commendations 8
IV. HOT Expenditure Performance 9
| A. HOT Revenue Contract 9
| B. Tourism in Abilene 10
| C. City of Abilene: Convention Center 12
| D. Abilene Chamber of Commerce (ACOC) 22
| E. Abilene Cultural Affairs Council (ACAC) 26
| F. Abilene Convention and Visitors Bureau (ACVB) 32
V. Interagency Collaboration Findings and Recommendations 41
| A. Strategic Planning 41
| B. Performance Measures and Reporting 42
| C. Interagency Collaboration 44
| D. Succession Planning 45
| E. Lease Contract 46
Appendix A: Use of Tax Revenue 47
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 4 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 1
I . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. BACKGROUND, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY Hotel owners, operators, and managers in the City of Abilene (the City) collect a 13% hotel occupancy tax (HOT), 6% of which is remitted to the State of Texas and the remaining 7% is retained by the City. The City contracts with the Abilene Chamber of Commerce (ACOC) to expend a portion of HOT revenues, which are passed on to the Abilene Cultural Affairs Council (ACAC) (15%) and the Abilene Convention and Visitors Bureau (ACVB) (50%). The remaining 35% of revenues are provided to the Abilene Convention Center, a department within the City. According to State law, HOT revenues must be spent on activities that directly enhance and promote tourism.
The City engaged Moss Adams to conduct a performance audit evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of HOT-funded expenditures by the ACOC, ACVB, ACAC, and the Abilene Convention Center in promoting, encouraging, and increasing hotel night stays. The audit also assessed the adequacy of controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of HOT revenues. The primary techniques used to conduct the performance audit included:
• Interviews: We conducted approximately 30 interviews with personnel, leadership, and stakeholders throughout the City, ACOC, ACVB, ACAC, and other local organizations.
• Document Review: We reviewed dozens of documents to understand relevant plans, goals, policies, and reporting.
• Testing: Using standardized sampling methods, we tested internal controls and compliance with State law and established policies and procedures for core functions.
• Benchmarking: We compared performance of the City’s functions to four cities identified as peers, including Bryan-College Station, Midland, Waco, and San Angelo.
This audit was conducted between May and September 2018 and consisted of four phases, including: 1) startup/management, 2) fact finding, 3) analysis, and 4) reporting.
B. SUMMARY OF RESULTS F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
HOT Revenue Contract
1
Finding The contract between the City and ACOC has not been updated since its issuance in 1981.
Recommendation Develop a new contract between the City and ACOC to ensure the contract supports the City’s goals, addresses contemporary business needs, and is compliant with relevant laws and regulations.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 5 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 2
F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
Tourism in Abilene
2 Finding The number of visitors in Abilene increased 34.9% between 2011 and 2017,
resulting in 26.4% additional local tax receipts generated from tourism.
Recommendation Continue efforts to increase tourism in the City through hosting events, providing and advertising cultural tourism attractions, and economic development.
City of Abilene: Convention Center
3
Finding In FY 2017, Convention Center bookings that generated hotel stays comprised approximately 56% of total bookings. However, the City may have used HOT revenues to fund Convention Center activities unrelated to convention events or meetings that directly promote tourism and the hotel and convention industry.
Recommendation
A. Identify allowable use of HOT revenues for Convention Center activities in accordance with Texas Tax Code 351.101.
B. Establish a formal methodology for determining if booked Convention Center events meet the requirements for use of HOT funds.
C. Establish a cost allocation plan to allocate appropriate indirect costs incurred in hosting non-local events.
D. Collaborate with the ACVB to increase the percentage of non-local Convention Center bookings to enable utilization of HOT revenues in support of operational costs.
4 Finding
The Convention Center’s use of HOT funds cannot be isolated from other sources of revenue to verify use because expenditures were not accounted for on a program cost basis.
Recommendations Establish a group of accounts within the City’s financial accounting system that can be used to record expenditures related to the HOT program.
5 Finding Despite various renovations and upgrades in recent years, the Convention Center
requires significant physical and technological upgrades to meet business needs.
Recommendation Continue developing a funding strategy to address Convention Center renovations to ensure it remains a competitive venue to host events.
6
Finding The Convention Center is often used to host local events, sometimes at the expense of non-local gatherings that are more likely to spur tourism.
Recommendation Revise the Convention Center’s booking policy to further prioritize non-local utilization and collaborate with the ACVB to explore new opportunities and incentives to offer to potential event hosts.
Abilene Chamber of Commerce
7 Finding
Related party contracts or memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are not in place between the ACOC and its affiliates for management and accounting services provided to the ACAC and ACVB.
Recommendations Develop MOUs or define roles and responsibilities in contracts to ensure management and accounting fees are properly defined, established, and monitored.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 6 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 3
F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
8 Finding
The ACOC’s management fee for support services charged to the affiliates is based on a percentage of revenues received by the ACVB and ACAC rather than actual costs incurred by the ACOC.
Recommendations Charges for services between related parties should be based on actual costs incurred, up to an established limit.
9 Finding Financial services for the ACOC, ACAC, and ACVB are not suitably segregated to
minimize organizational risk of erroneous or unauthorized transactions.
Recommendation To protect ACOC and affiliate assets, reallocate duties among existing staff to ensure appropriate segregation of duties and reduce risks to an acceptable level.
Abilene Cultural Affairs Council
10 Finding The ACAC’s use of HOT funds cannot be isolated from other sources of revenue
because expenditures were not accounted for on a program cost basis.
Recommendation Establish a group of accounts within the ACAC’s financial accounting system that can be used to record expenditures paid by HOT revenues.
11 Finding HOT revenues were comingled with money from other revenue sources in the
ACAC’s general operating bank account, contrary to State law.
Recommendation Establish a separate bank account to segregate HOT funds.
12 Finding The ACAC presented inconsistent evidence of review and approval of vendor
invoices and receipts for purchases, resulting in an internal control weakness.
Recommendation Require evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for costs incurred.
13 Finding There are opportunities to increase collaboration between the ACAC and the City
regarding cultural asset planning and maintenance.
Recommendation Develop a collaborative planning process and funding strategy to support ongoing maintenance costs of sculptures and other cultural assets.
Abilene Convention and Visitors Bureau
14 Finding The ACVB presented inconsistent evidence of review and approval of vendor
invoices and receipts for purchases, resulting in an internal control weakness.
Recommendation Require evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for costs incurred.
Interagency Collaboration
15 Finding
The four entities that receive HOT revenues do not engage in a formal collaborative planning process to support increased tourism, which could result in missed opportunities to gain efficiencies and increase effectiveness.
Recommendation Develop a unified 5-year strategic plan to leverage the resources of all HOT recipient organizations and promote accelerated tourism growth.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 7 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 4
F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
16 Finding Some agency goals focus on outputs and activities rather than outcomes and,
collectively, do not comprehensively address tourism.
Recommendation Develop outcome-focused performance measures in alignment with a tourism strategic plan and regularly report on progress toward goals.
17
Finding Although the Convention Center, ACOC, ACAC, and ACVB regularly collaborate informally on key events and activities, there are additional opportunities to collaborate among the organizations and other local organizations.
Recommendation Foster increased interagency collaboration by establishing regular meeting schedules to build relationships, include additional interagency performance measures in annual goals, and provide opportunities to collaborate with other local organizations.
18
Finding The ACAC and ACVB have small workforces with extensive experience, but they have not developed succession plans to fill key positions.
Recommendation Develop a strategy to address succession planning for key positions in the ACAC and ACVB to ensure operational continuity and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders.
19 Finding The City is leasing the T&P Passenger Depot Building to the ACOC and its affiliates
under the terms of an expired lease contract.
Recommendation Draft a new lease agreement or amendment to the existing contract to address the current operating relationship between the entities.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 8 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 5
I I . BACKGROUND, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
A. BACKGROUND Hotel owners, operators, and managers in the State of Texas collect a 6% state hotel occupancy tax (HOT). Under State law, HOT applies to hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, condominiums, apartments, and houses costing at least $15 per day. The City of Abilene (the City), like many cities and counties in Texas, also levies a local HOT of 7%. The tax is collected at the time of payment for lodging by the lodging provider and due monthly to the City. Over the last 10 years, the City collected nearly $30 million in HOT revenues.
Since 1981, the City has contracted with the Abilene Chamber of Commerce (ACOC) to expend a portion of HOT proceeds for the provision of marketing, tourism, and the promotion of the arts, with the goal of increasing tourism in Abilene. In turn, the ACOC partners with the Abilene Convention and Visitors Bureau (ACVB) and the Abilene Cultural Affairs Council (ACAC) to achieve these goals. Funds are split between the entities, with 50% paid to the ACVB and 15% to the ACAC. These two agencies return 2% of the funds to the ACOC as payment for internal services such as human resources, finance, and IT. The remaining 35% of HOT revenues are used to support the Abilene Convention Center, a department of the City of Abilene. The chart below shows how revenues and expenditures flow between entities.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 9 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 6
According to Texas State Law, expenditures of local HOT revenues must adhere to the following two conditions:
1. Every expenditure must directly enhance and promote tourism and the convention and hotel industry.
2. Every HOT expenditure must clearly fit into one of nine statutorily provided categories for expenditure of local HOT revenues.
This performance audit evaluates the expenditure of Abilene’s HOT revenues in support of increased tourism. The timing of this audit coincides with the development of a downtown hotel, funded in part by future HOT revenues earned by the hotel.
B. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The City engaged Moss Adams LLP to conduct a performance audit of the City's professional services agreement with the ACOC for the expenditure of HOT revenues by the ACVB and the ACAC. The City Council hopes to understand how effective these two agencies are in promoting and encouraging hotel night stays through tourism, and in the promotion of the arts and its ability to generate hotel night stays.
This performance audit was designed to address the following objectives for the period of fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2017:
1. Does the ACVB efficiently and effectively spend HOT revenues to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives as set forth by the ACVB Board of Directors?
2. Does the ACAC efficiently and effectively spend HOT revenues to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives as set forth by the ACAC Board of Directors?
3. Does the ACOC, as the parent entity of the ACVB and ACAC, efficiently and effectively spend HOT revenues to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives as forth by the ACOC Board of Directors?
4. Are the expenditures made by the three entities (ACVB, ACAC, and ACOC) in keeping with current best practices and effective in promoting, encouraging, and increasing hotel night stays?
5. Are there adequate controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of HOT revenues remitted to the ACVB, ACAC, and ACOC by the City of Abilene, Texas?
6. The City also receives HOT. Are the expenditures made by the City in keeping with current best practices and effective in promoting, encouraging, and increasing hotel night stays?
Moss Adams also assessed compliance with Texas State Law in the expenditure of HOT revenues. In addition, we evaluated the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of HOT revenues in promoting tourism and the hotel and convention industry. This analysis included an assessment of tourism in the City, administration of activities and funds, strategic planning, and business plans. The primary techniques used to conduct the performance audit included:
• Interviews: We conducted approximately 30 interviews with personnel, leadership, and stakeholders throughout the City, ACOC, ACVB, ACAC, and other local organizations.
• Document Review: We reviewed dozens of documents to understand relevant plans, goals, policies, and reporting.
• Testing: Using standardized sampling methods, we tested internal controls and compliance with State law and established policies and procedures for core functions.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 10 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 7
• Benchmarking: We compared performance of the City’s functions to four cities identified as peers, including Bryan-College Station, Midland, Waco, and San Angelo.
This audit was conducted between May and September 2018 and consisted of four phases, including: 1) startup/management, 2) fact finding, 3) analysis, and 4) reporting.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 11 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 8
I I I . COMMENDATIONS Although the focus of the HOT performance audit was to identify areas where improvement could be made, it is important to note the areas of strength that can be leveraged and utilized for furthering improvement within each organization. The City, ACOC, ACVB, and ACAC should be commended for the following accomplishments:
• Collaborative Culture: In interviews, staff emphasized how often and productively they work together. Visibility and collaboration across entities results in valued staff who are aware of their organization’s internal and external operating environment. Individuals reported a strong sense of pride in the City, their goals, and their achievements.
• Board Engagement: ACOC, ACVB, and ACAC board members are actively engaged in the work of their organizations. The board members demonstrated strong relationships with their peers in partner organizations and in the community, providing strong leadership in Abilene.
• Revenue and Tourism Growth: Annual HOT revenues increased from $2.2 million in FY 2007 to $3.2 million in FY 2017.
We would like to thank each organization’s staff, management, and leadership for their willingness to assist us in this review process.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 12 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 9
IV. HOT EXPENDITURE PERFORMANCE The following section addresses the findings related to the HOT revenue contact between the City and the ACOC, as well as tourism and the performance of agencies that receive HOT revenues. Findings related to interagency collaboration are discussed in Section V.
A. HOT REVENUE CONTRACT
1 FINDING The contract between the City and ACOC has not been updated since its issuance in 1981.
RECOMMENDATION Develop a new contract between the City and ACOC to ensure the contract supports the City’s goals, addresses contemporary business needs, and is compliant with relevant laws and regulations.
The current HOT program contract between the City of Abilene and the ACOC (and its affiliates) was issued in 1981. Additionally, no contract revisions or amendments have been issued to realign the contract terms to the current regulatory and business environment. For example, the ACAC and ACVB have established reserve funds that consist of HOT revenues. However, the outdated contract creates a gap in areas related to program cost principles, cash management, program income, sub-recipients, procurement requirements, reporting, related party transactions, documentation requirements, and any City-specific requirements and provisions.
To mitigate the risk of non-compliance by all parties, a new contract should be drafted to incorporate the requirements imposed by Chapter 351, subsections (a) through (o), of the Texas Tax Code. Additionally, the contract should give consideration to address the following compliance areas:
• Cost principles
o Allowed and disallowed activities
o Cost allocation (direct and indirect costs1)
o Provisions specific to certain items of cost
• Cash management
o Segregation of HOT revenues
o Cash reserves
• Program income
• Sub-recipients of HOT revenues
• Procurement requirements
• Reporting
o Performance reporting
o Financial reporting
1 See Texas Tax Code, Section 351.101(e), for information on indirect costs that are authorized for HOT funding.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 13 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 10
• Related party transactions
o Requirements to disclose related party activities to the City (nature of activity, roles and responsibilities, basis for charges incurred)
• Document and audit record requirements
• Any City requirements that are more comprehensive than State criteria
o Requirements for a system of internal controls over program activities
• Any other City-specific provisions
Establishing a new contract provides the City with an opportunity to clarify and potentially redefine expectations related to use of HOT funds, anticipated outcomes, and other administrative requirements.
B. TOURISM IN ABILENE
2 FINDING The number of visitors in Abilene increased 34.9% between 2011 and 2017, resulting in 26.4% additional local tax receipts generated from tourism.
RECOMMENDATION Continue efforts to increase tourism in the City through hosting events, providing and advertising cultural tourism attractions, and economic development.
Overall, tourism in Abilene increased between FY 2010-11 and FY 2016-17. According to an independent study of the economic impact of tourism commissioned by the Office of the Governor, between 2010 and 2016, total visitor direct spending in the City increased 8.5%, local tax receipts generated from tourism increased 26.4%, and tourism-related employment increased 7.7%.
2010 2012 2014 2016 Percent Change
Total Visitor Direct Spending ($ Million) 392.1 439.8 465.0 425.5 +8.5%
Total Local Tax Receipts Generated from Visitors ($ Million)
9.1 9.9 11.2 11.5 +26.4%
Industry Employment Generated by Travel 3,650 3,730 3,930 3,930 +7.7%
Source: The Economic Impact of Travel on Texas (1994-2016p), Dean Runyan Associates
According to ACVB marketing plans, the number of visitors in Abilene increased by 34.9%, from 2,840,000 in 2011 to 3,830,000 in 2016. Visitor days also increased by 38%, from 5,020,000 in 2011 to 6,930,000 in 2017.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 14 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 11
Source: ACVB Marketing Plans 2011-2017
In addition to an increased number of visitors, the City’s overall hotel room inventory also increased by 316 rooms, to a total of 3,533 rooms. Even with this inventory increase, overall hotel room occupancy rates increased from 49.6% in 2011 to 65.9% in 2017. The combined increase of hotel rooms and occupancy rates also suggest that tourism in the City has increased.
Several events in the City have resulted in increased visitors and hotel nights, including:
• Acquisition and display of numerous storybook sculptures
• Designation as the Storybook Capital of Texas by the 84th Legislature of the State of Texas
• Annual Children’s Art and Literacy Festival (CALF)
• Addition of the giraffe exhibit at the Abilene Zoo
• Renovation of the Taylor County Expo Center
• Events hosted at the City’s Convention Center
• Renovation of the historic Paramount Theater
These events, museum attractions at the Taylor County History Center, Frontier Texas, and the Grace Museum, as well as additional efforts of the City, ACOC, ACVB, and ACAC have helped support tourism in the City. The following sections detail the key tourism supporting activities conducted by each entity receiving HOT revenues.
Peer cities also provide several additional services to support local tourism, such as grant programs for organizations that contribute to tourism, including downtown development associations, cultural heritage attractions, and other local businesses. Because of the close relationship between tourism and downtown revitalization, both Bryan-College Station and San Angelo provide HOT revenues to their local downtown associations.
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Visitors in Abilene, TX
# of Visitors # of Visitor Days
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 15 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 12
C. CITY OF ABILENE: CONVENTION CENTER
BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES The City of Abilene Finance Department collects HOT revenues from hotels, motels, and other overnight lodging locations in the city. The City retains approximately 35% of total HOT revenues collected to supplement the Convention Center’s operating budget, as shown in the table below:
C I T Y O F A B I L E N E : C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R B U D G E T A N D E X P E N D I T U R E S
Year Final
Budget ($)
Other Revenue
Sources ($)
HOT Fund Revenue
($)
Percent of Budget
Funded by HOT
Revenue Expenditures
($)1
Budget Balance
($)
2011 1,051,770 152,637 899,133 85% 1,041,578 10,192
2012 2,571,340 1,643,455 927,885 36% 2,548,474 22,866
2013 1,052,000 81,033 970,967 92% 1,025,031 26,969
2014 1,028,500 - 1,049,517 102% 942,923 85,577
2015 1,240,840 114,787 1,126,053 91% 1,185,941 54,899
2016 1,365,830 308,841 1,056,989 77% 1,179,912 185,918
2017 1,273,550 154,161 1,119,389 88% 1,220,042 53,508
1As noted in Finding 4, Convention Center expenditures that were paid with HOT revenues could not be isolated.
STAFFING AND RESOURCES To understand the relative efficiency of Abilene’s Convention Center, key statistics including staffing levels (based on headcount not full-time equivalent), budget, facility size, events hosted, and attendees were compared to peer convention centers for FY 2016-17. Bryan-College Station was excluded from this analysis because the City does not operate a convention center and Midland was excluded because their convention center was demolished in 2016 with plans to reopen in September 2019. Convention services offered at these locations differ substantially in size and scope, although the City of Abilene appears to be efficient in comparison to peers with respect to budgetary spending for its facility size, number of events hosted, and hotel rooms generated.
Abilene Waco1 San Angelo
Governing model City operated City operated Chamber of Commerce operated
Number of staff (headcount)
28 12 12
Budget $1,015,000 $4,924,980 $1,470,778
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 16 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 13
Abilene Waco1 San Angelo
Facility Size (square feet) 130,000 144,000 20,823
Events hosted 422 417 -
Convention attendees 434,261 121,289 -
Hotel rooms generated 13,908 50,882 -
1 Staff and budget data include both the Waco Convention Center and Waco Convention and Visitors Bureau information.
GOAL SETTING AND ATTAINMENT Most of the Convention Center’s goals relate to maintenance and facility upgrades that have typically been completed year over year. In FY 2013-14, Civic Abilene Inc., which serves as the Convention Center’s Board of Directors, appointed a Future Development Committee to help identify, evaluate, and prioritize future needs of the facility. Since then, the Convention Center has made several upgrades, including replacing tables and chairs, ADA-compliant hearing devices, and transitioning to an online customer relationship management tool to improve customer service and automate processes. The City also completed an audit of the Convention Center’s upcoming facility needs and the auditorium’s sound system.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 17 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 14
CONVENTION CENTER GOALS F Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 F Y 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 F Y 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 F Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Faci
lity
Upg
rade
s
Upgrade facility. Replaced Conference Center draping for windows and doors. Installation of new carpet tiles in the backstage dressing rooms.
Upgrade facility. Purchased equipment.
Upgrade facility. Placed crash bars on and refinished auditorium interior doors to be compliant with Fire Department.
Work with Civic Abilene, Inc. to evaluate and identify future facility needs.
Civic Abilene, Inc. appointed a Future Development Committee that evaluated and prioritized the future needs of the facility.
Replace chillers. Replaced chillers.
Adm
inis
trat
ion Continue to
survey and visit facilities.
Rates and Fees increase effective October 1, 2010.
Explore additional revenue sources. Continue to research the latest trends in technology.
Continued to research additional revenues sources and latest trends.
Complete facility rate and equipment fee study.
n/a Complete facility rate and equipment fee study.
Staff completed the facility rate and equipment fee study. Approved fee increases became effective on October 1, 2015.
F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Faci
lity
Upg
rade
s
Begin process of replacing tables and chairs.
Began process of purchasing new tables.
Continue the process of replacing tables and chairs.
Continued purchasing new tables.
Continue the process of replacing tables and chairs.
Continued purchasing new tables.
Replace ADA hearing devices.
Purchased new ADA hearing devices for auditorium events.
Purchase a digital sound board for the auditorium that will provide clearer sound to our customers.
Purchased digital sound board.
Restoration of the conference center foyer terrazzo.
Restore the Conference Center and Main Foyer terrazzo floors twice per year.
Remove the existing rigging system and installation of motorized fly system for the auditorium.
Removed existing rigging system and installed motorized fly system for the auditorium.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 18 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 15
F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Complete audit of auditorium sound system.
Began audit of auditorium sound system.
Finalize the audit of the auditorium sound system.
Audit of the auditorium sound system finalized in March 2016.
Purchase equipment, which will increase efficiency and customer service.
Purchased equipment including AV equipment (direct boxes, cables, AV racks, wireless microphones, lapel microphones, lighting truss), Marquee sign holders, cocktail tables, tenant floor scrubber.
Update current marketing materials to promote the facility.
Not completed. Create new marketing materials to promote the facility (event brochures, handouts, folders, etc.)
Not completed.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 19 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 16
Although the City has not established goals for the Convention Center related to the number of events, attendees, or related hotel nights, this information demonstrates utilization of the facility over time. Since 2011, Convention Center attendance per year has fluctuated within a range from 71,885 (2013) to 92,049 (2015) visitors. According to the Convention Center’s monthly reports, the venue experienced 100% utilization on the weekends, with weekday utilization fluctuating between 80-100% on an annual basis.
The Convention Center provides comment cards to meeting planners and conference hosts. Throughout the audit period, 100% of the returned comment cards reported that hosts were, at a minimum, satisfied with their experience of hosting an event at the Abilene Convention Center.
Other key activities and programs regularly performed by the Abilene Convention Center throughout the audit period include:
• Offering two options to promoters to sell tickets via the internet and external agency phone room
• Offering wireless internet services as required by events through contracts, at no cost to the City
362,475
407,429
407,097
539,342 610,581
488,820 434,261
14,540 13,479 12,025 13,350 12,576 14,974 13,908 -
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Convention Center Attendees
Convention Center Attendees Hotel Room Nights
0100200300400500600700
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Abilene Convention Center Events
Total Events City Events
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 20 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 17
• Actively supporting the ACVB by attending bid trips and the Austin Sales Blitz, cooperating on billboard advertising, and underwriting facility rental for conventions
• Survey and visiting other similar facilities in other cities
• Participating in the Texas Association of Venue and Facilities and the International Association of Venue Managers
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLOWABLE USE OF HOT REVENUES
3 FINDING In FY 2017, Convention Center bookings that generated hotel stays comprised approximately 56% of total bookings. However, the City may have used HOT revenues to fund Convention Center activities unrelated to convention events or meetings that directly promote tourism and the hotel and convention industry.
RECOMMENDATIONS A. Identify allowable use of HOT revenues for Convention Center activities in accordance with Texas Tax Code 351.101.
B. Establish a formal methodology for determining if booked Convention Center events meet the requirements for use of HOT funds.
C. Establish a cost allocation plan to allocate appropriate indirect costs incurred in hosting non-local events.
D. Collaborate with the ACVB to increase the percentage of non-local Convention Center bookings to enable utilization of HOT revenues in support of operational costs.
The Texas Tax Code specifies that HOT revenues must be used to promote tourism and the convention and hotel industry. Section 351.101(a) of the tax code limits use of these revenues to:
“(1) the acquisition of sites for and the construction, improvement, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operation, and maintenance of convention center facilities or visitor information centers, or both…”
The Texas Hotel and Lodging Association further clarifies the primary use requirement as follows:
“Texas law specifies that for a facility to be funded as a convention center, it must be a facility primarily used to host conventions and meetings. “Primarily used” in this context would arguably mean that more than 50 percent of the bookings for the facility are to host conventions or meetings that directly promote tourism and the hotel and convention industry. In other words, holding local resident meetings in a facility would not count toward qualifying the facility as a convention center, but meetings of individuals from out-of-town who in part stay at hotels would qualify.”
According to this guidance, in order to use HOT revenues to fund Convention Center maintenance and operations, at least 50% of bookings should result in subsequent tourism from exhibitors or event attendees. Currently, the City informally defines Convention Center bookings that qualify for use of HOT
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 21 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 18
funds as events that generate hotel night stays. However, this definition should be clarified further to avoid speculative interpretations when used in practice.
In FY 2017, Abilene Convention Center bookings that generated hotel stays were approximately 56% of total bookings; however, a number of the events may not have met the criteria for use of HOT funds as determined by State law. For example, under the City’s definition, events such as an employee health fair for City employees may generate hotel night stays, but do not promote tourism and the hotel and convention industry. Therefore, Convention Center activities may not have met the primary use requirement to fund operations with HOT revenues, resulting in costs that are considered unallowable under the State tax code.
The tables below detail convention center events funded by HOT revenues under the City’s current definition for allowable use.
A B I L E N E C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R E V E N T S F U N D E D B Y H O T R E V E N U E S B Y E V E N T T Y P E
F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 1 7
HOT Funded Events Number of
Events
Percentage of Total
Bookings
Event Type
Banquets and galas 17 7%
Religious and church events 4 2%
Community events (ACOC events, homecoming, etc.) 2 1%
Convention and expo shows 17 7%
Fundraising 12 5%
Local government 4 2%
Business meetings 29 11%
Performing arts 38 15%
Private events 5 2%
School events 8 3%
Sporting events 7 3%
Total HOT related events 143 56%
Non-HOT related events 112 44%
Total Convention Center Events 255 100%
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 22 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 19
A B I L E N E C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R E V E N T S F U N D E D B Y H O T R E V E N U E S B Y L E S S E E T Y P E
F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 1 7
Convention Center – Lessee Bookings Number of
Events
Percentage of Total
Bookings
Local Lessee Bookings
With hotel night stays 100 39%
Without hotel night stays 107 42%
Total local lessee bookings 207 81%
Non-Local Lessee Bookings
With hotel night stays 43 17%
Without hotel night stays 5 2%
Total non-local lessee bookings 48 19%
Total Bookings 255 100%
To mitigate the risk of non-compliance with State law, the City should consider the following recommendations:
A. Identify activities that meet the tax code’s requirements for use of HOT revenues: The City should develop a list of activities and circumstances that can be funded with HOT revenues to ensure compliance with State law. Appendix A includes a summary of activities allowed under Texas Tax Code 351.101.
B. Establish a methodology for determining if Convention Center events meet the requirements for use of HOT funds: Since there is no statutory formula for determining the level of impact an event must have to satisfy the requirements for use of HOT funds, the City should develop a methodology to ensure a consistent approach for making such determination is used. Examples of criteria that should be considered include:
i) Percentage or number of non-local attendees and exhibitors needed to be considered to have an impact on tourism.
ii) If hotel room blocks are reserved or special room rates negotiated for the booked event.
iii) If events are advertised to the public.
Furthermore, the City should review the sample “hotel occupancy tax application” and “post event” forms developed by Texas Hotel and Lodging Association to assist in the development of their methodology.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 23 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 20
C. Establish and implement a cost allocation plan that defines the methodology for allocating appropriate indirect costs incurred in hosting Convention Center events considered allowable under the State tax code: The portion of indirect costs incurred in supporting allowable Convention Center activities are also eligible to be paid by HOT funds. Examples of allocation of indirect costs include, but are not limited to:
i) General and administrative costs (i.e., supplies, salaries of administrative staff, overhead expenses, etc.)
ii) Costs for services incurred by other City departments not otherwise treated as a direct cost.
D. Collaborate with the ACVB to increase the percentage of non-local Convention Center bookings to enable utilization of HOT revenues to support Convention Center maintenance and operations: Recommendation 6 includes additional details on potential strategies to increase non-local bookings in collaboration with the ACVB. In the interim, the City should consider funding the Convention Center through other mechanisms such as sales tax or general fund dollars. The City should consider reevaluating its priority booking policy to provide greater emphasis on booking non-local events whenever possible.
PROGRAM COST ACCOUNTING
4 FINDING The Convention Center’s use of HOT funds cannot be isolated from other sources of revenue to verify use because expenditures were not accounted for on a program cost basis.
RECOMMENDATION Establish a group of accounts within the City’s financial accounting system that can be used to record expenditures related to the HOT program.
As noted in the previous section, HOT revenues retained by the City are used to supplement the Convention Center’s operating budget. However, expenditures were not accounted for separately on a program cost basis. Therefore, costs that were paid using HOT revenues and general City funds could not be differentiated.
To ensure financial information is presented appropriately, in a manner where financial information related to HOT funds are expressed clearly, the City should establish additional accounts within the chart of accounts to record program expenditures paid by HOT funds. Accounting for costs in this manner supports oversight of the use of HOT revenues by tracing costs to activities related to the HOT program. This practice helps ensure revenues are utilized in accordance with State law and increases transparency in the use of funds.
CONVENTION CENTER IMPROVEMENTS
5 FINDING Despite various renovations and upgrades in recent years, the Convention Center requires significant physical and technological upgrades to meet business needs.
RECOMMENDATION Continue developing a funding strategy to address Convention Center renovations to ensure it remains a competitive venue to host events.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 24 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 21
The Convention Center sets annual goals related to facility upgrades that both ensure it is compliant with regulations and enhance its appearance and functionality. In 2015, voters approved a bond to renovate the exhibit hall and motorized fly system in the auditorium. These upgrades are vital to maintaining the Convention Center’s status as a competitive event venue. Additionally, the City has set aside $4 million to fund additional Convention Center improvements.
The Convention Center has made progress towards modernizing its systems and processes. For example, in 2016, the Convention Center upgraded a significant portion of its sound equipment and invested in a new sound board. The Convention Center is also in the process of implementing a new booking software system, Ungerboeck, that allows meeting hosts to request a meeting at the location online. This system also allows staff to better track utilization and reduces reliance on time-consuming manual processes, thereby increasing overall staff efficiency.
In 2017, the Convention Center appraised the total value of required renovations and upgrades, totaling $14.5 million. This estimate includes improvements to the facility’s auditorium, foyer, exhibit hall and kitchen, conference center kitchen and service alley, meetings rooms and suites, and exterior. To ensure the Convention Center receives adequate funding to perform necessary upgrades, the City should develop short and long-range financial plans for ongoing maintenance and upgrades of the venue.
Several of Abilene’s peer convention centers have recently undergone significant renovations. In the case of Midland, the convention center was completely demolished and is currently being rebuilt. Abilene should strive to stay competitive by offering current amenities that operate seamlessly to serve customers’ contemporary business needs. Additionally, these upgrades can be advertised on the City’s website to capture more business.
CONVENTION CENTER UTILIZATION
6 FINDING The Convention Center is often used to host local events, sometimes at the expense of non-local gatherings that are more likely to spur tourism.
RECOMMENDATION Revise the Convention Center’s booking policy to further prioritize non-local utilization and collaborate with the ACVB to explore new opportunities and incentives to offer to potential event hosts.
The Convention Center’s current booking policy provides non-local event preference up to a year in advance. Less than one year prior to an event, locally hosted events can be booked at the Convention Center, sometimes at the expense of a non-local event that may be requested at a later date. The Convention Center and the ACVB do not track how often non-local events are unable to book an event due to pre-existing local events. Over the course of the audit period, the majority of events hosted at the Convention Center were local, with a small portion being non-local.
The City is currently exploring repurposing a former middle school into a community center as a component of Heritage Square, which would provide an alternative venue for local events. In order for HOT funds to be used to support the Convention Center, it should focus on serving non-local clients and events that bring in at least 100-250 hotel stays. As the City develops a new venue for local events, the Convention Center should increase its focus on booking non-local events and reevaluate its booking policy to reflect this emphasis.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 25 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 22
To emphasize the focus on non-local clientele, the City should establish an annually increasing goal for Convention Center events that bring in out-of-town visitors. The Convention Center and ACVB should work together to maintain high levels of occupancy for the venue by exploring new opportunities and incentives to offer potential event hosts. The ability of the City to secure events at its Convention Center remains contingent on its required renovations and the development of the downtown hotel. Therefore, development of this utilization goal should take the Convention Center’s renovation funding strategy and downtown hotel development timing into account to ensure its practicality.
D. ABILENE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (ACOC)
BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES The ACOC primarily serves as a pass-through entity, which distributes HOT funds received by the City to the ACVB and ACAC. The affiliates each contribute 2% of the tax revenue back to the ACOC as a fee for internal service support, such as finance, human resources, and some IT functions and support. The table below shows HOT revenues received by the ACOC from all sources.
A C O C H O T R E V E N U E S
Year Total
Revenues ($)
Other Revenue
Sources ($)1
HOT Revenues Actual ($)
Percentage of Revenue from
HOT Sources (%)
2011 737,008 703,612 33,396 5%
2012 702,928 668,464 34,464 5%
2013 761,021 724,957 36,064 5%
2014 796,571 757,529 38,982 5%
2015 1,159,385 1,117,560 41,825 4%
2016 1,437,132 1,397,872 39,260 3%
2017 1,617,958 1,576,381 41,577 3%
1Calculated from unrestricted revenues reported per ACOC’s audited financial statements, net of HOT revenue sources.
The ACOC’s HOT program expenditures primarily consist of general and administrative costs incurred in the support of the ACVB and ACAC. Because the charges for these services were based on a percentage of HOT revenues received, rather than costs incurred by the ACOC, a finding was noted. See Findings 7 and 8 for more information.
STAFFING AND RESOURCES To understand the relative efficiency of the ACOC, key statistics including staffing levels (based on headcount not full-time equivalent), budget, population, and number of members, were compared to peer chambers for FY 2016-17. Chamber services, number of local businesses, size of local businesses, and
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 26 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 23
strategic areas of focus differ significantly among the peer organizations. In relation to peers, Abilene has a comparable number of members and generally operates with fewer staff.
Abilene
Bryan-College Station Midland Waco San Angelo
Number of staff (headcount) 9 10 19 20.5 61
Budget $1,617,958 - - $3,750,000 -
Population served2 122,225 255,519 134,610 134,432 100,702
Number of members 1,295 1,457 - 1,600 1,300
1Excludes two economic development staff and four Convention and Visitors Bureau staff. 2Population estimates based on 2016 US Census Bureau Data.
GOAL SETTING AND ATTAINMENT The ACOC’s mission is to develop and support the economy and quality of life in the Abilene area. As such, the ACOC provides networking, tools, advocacy, and other technical support to affiliate organizations such as the ACAC, ACVB, and other industry groups such as Military Affairs and Industrial Affairs. Each ACOC committee and affiliate compiles an annual business plan detailing their goals and objectives for the plan. The ACOC also compiles a monthly report detailing progress on the business plan. However, the ACOC does not create overarching goals within these business plans to help align its affiliate organizations. Therefore, progress toward established goals for the ACOC as a whole cannot be assessed.
In 2016, ACOC established a three-year strategic plan, referred to as “Advantage Abilene,” that identified three primary goals and correlated success metrics:
1. Enable economic growth: Grow and sustain health and vitality in the Abilene area.
Success metrics: Surveys, polls, feedback, collection of resources, job growth, population growth
2. Foster community engagement: Develop a “sense of place,” ownership, and enhance the quality of life in the Abilene area.
Success metrics: Partnerships/collaborations, filled community leadership positions, brand perceptions
3. Deliver value to members: Provide opportunities that give our members added value and a competitive edge.
Success metrics: Membership retention, new members, satisfaction surveys
Although the plan identifies success metrics for each goal, the metrics are not specific enough to effectively evaluate progress toward achievement of goals. For additional information on performance measures, please refer to Section V.B (Finding 16).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 27 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 24
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AFFILIATE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7 FINDING Related party contracts or memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are not in place between the ACOC and its affiliates for management and accounting services provided to the ACAC and ACVB.
RECOMMENDATION Develop MOUs or define roles and responsibilities in contracts to ensure management and accounting fees are properly defined, established, and monitored.
Although there are related party transactions between the ACOC and its affiliates for management and accounting fees, no agreements or MOUs were drafted to document the nature of the related party transactions, the agreed upon price for services, or the basis of how such costs were determined. Without these documents in place, there is an increased risk of HOT funds being used to pay for services that may not be supported by actual costs incurred by the related party.
To enhance governance and transparency over related party transactions, related party agreements or MOUs should be drafted to address the terms of services to be performed, obligation of participating parties, price for services, and consideration for pricing (e.g., actual costs incurred). Such agreements and MOUs should be acknowledged by the governing bodies of participating parties and disclosed to the City. Documentation of such agreements and MOUs should be maintained, and they should be reviewed at least biennially by each entity to ensure they meet current business needs.
ACOC MANAGEMENT FEE
8 FINDING The ACOC’s management fee for support services charged to the affiliates is based on a percentage of revenues received by the ACVB and ACAC rather than actual costs incurred by the ACOC.
RECOMMENDATION Charges for services between related parties should be based on actual costs incurred, up to an established limit.
The ACOC charged the ACVB and ACAC a 2% management fee of all HOT revenues received for internal service support, such as finance, human resources, and some IT functions and support. Charging for services in this manner increases risks of costs being charged without services being rendered, as fees are based on a percentage of cash receipts regardless if expenses are incurred by the related party.
To ensure charges for services between related parties are reasonable, the ACOC should base its management fee on an allocation of actual costs incurred in support of the ACVB and ACAC, not to exceed an established limit. Furthermore, such related party arrangements should be established through related party contracts or MOUs. See Finding 7 for more details.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 28 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 25
SEGREGATION OF DUTIES
9 FINDING Financial services for the ACOC, ACAC, and ACVB are not suitably segregated to minimize organizational risk of erroneous or unauthorized transactions.
RECOMMENDATION To protect ACOC and affiliate assets, reallocate duties among existing staff to ensure appropriate segregation of duties and reduce risks to an acceptable level.
The ACOC’s CFO manages the books for the ACOC and its affiliates, which includes access to perform nearly all accounting functions such as accounts payable, invoice processing, accounts receivable, bank reconciliations, reporting, payroll, and contract management. Furthermore, evidence of compensating control activities performed to mitigate risks caused by a lack of segregation of duties was not maintained. While this is common in small organizations, without suitable segregation of these financial duties, there is elevated organizational risk.
To mitigate organizational risk, the ACOC should segregate incompatible duties throughout the various accounting cycles. An individual employee should not be able to perform incompatible duties within the same accounting cycle. Segregation of duties helps prevent erroneous and unauthorized transactions as various steps within the same accounting cycle are being performed by different individuals. According to best practice for segregation of duties, the following duties/functions should be performed by different employees within each accounting cycle:
• Approval of transactions
• Recording transactions within the accounting system
• Having custody or access to assets
• Comparing and reconciling financial transactions and records
In instances where segregation of duties is not feasible due to staff size, compensating controls should be implemented to reduce risks created by the lack of segregated duties to an acceptable level. Additional mitigating controls should also be implemented in conjunction with segregation of duties to further reduce risk. Examples of potential mitigating control activities include:
• Establishing/updating documented policies and procedures
• Establishing documentation standards (e.g., standardized forms for check requests, travel, expense reports, etc.)
• Performing workplace practices based on established policies and procedures
• Implementing logical and physical access controls through the use of technology and physical barriers.
• Outsourcing an entire or partial process to be performed by a third party (service organization)
Implementation of appropriate segregation of duties and additional mitigating controls helps protect organizational assets and reduces the risk of errors and unauthorized activities.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 29 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 26
E. ABILENE CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL (ACAC)
BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES The ACAC is tasked with the encouragement, promotion, improvement, and application of the arts for the City of Abilene. The ACAC receives approximately 15% of total HOT revenues received by the City to promote tourism activities and attractions related to the arts. The City Council approved an annual budget for HOT funds to be used by the ACAC, as shown in the following table:
A C A C H O T R E V E N U E S
Year Budget ($) Actual ($)
2011 375,000 377,636
2012 355,000 389,712
2013 355,000 407,806
2014 390,000 440,797
2015 420,000 472,942
2016 450,000 443,935
2017 435,000 470,143
As noted in Finding 10 below, ACAC expenditures that were paid with HOT revenues could not be isolated.
STAFFING AND RESOURCES Due to large variances in the scope of programs and services offered by Cultural Affairs Councils and Districts across the state of Texas, staffing and resource comparisons could not be drawn for the ACAC. Generally, arts and cultural organizations encompass a significant amount of activities that are not easily quantified, such as performing arts and theater performances, public art displays, summer camps, and local arts events. These events cater both to local community members and cultural tourists.
GOAL SETTING AND ATTAINMENT The ACAC’s goals focus largely on arts and culture development in the community. Most of the organization’s funding derives from grants and donations and supports performing arts, storybook sculptures, the CALF, and grant programs such as HeArts for the ARTS.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 30 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 27
CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL GOALS Goal FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17
Broadway in Abilene: Sponsor a performing arts series to provide Abilenians with an opportunity to view outstanding Broadway shows.
Sponsored four shows:
• Fiddler on the Roof
• The Aluminum Show
• Disney’s Beauty and the Beast
• Legally Blonde the Musical
Sponsored four shows:
• Young Frankenstein
• Stomp • 100 Years of
Broadway • Shrek the
Musical
Sponsored four shows:
• Cirque Dreams Holidaze
• West Side Story
• Spamalot • Elvis Lives
Sponsored four shows:
• Ballroom with a Twist
• Beauty and the Beast
• Hello Dolly • Hair
Sponsored four shows:
• Jekyll and Hyde
• Broadway Holiday
• Million Dollar Quartet
• Camelot
Sponsored four shows:
• Mamma Mia • Ragtime • Annie • Bullets Over
Broadway
Sponsored four shows:
• Elf • Saloon • Saturday
Night Fever • Cinderella
Young Audiences: Provide quality arts-in-education program to young people to develop their potential as creative and productive individuals. Transit and support 13 performing arts ensembles and serve 16,000 children.
Served nearly 15,000 children in Taylor, Callahan, Mitchell, Shakelford, Nolan, Haskell, and Jones counties.
Served nearly 14,000 children in Taylor, Callahan, Mitchell, Shackelford, Nolan, Haskell, and Jones counties.
15,000 children in the Abilene area were served by the Young Audiences program.
Almost 12,000 children were served in a Young Audiences Program, either in theater, music, dance, or literature.
Almost 12,000 children were served in a Young Audiences Program, either in theater, music, dance, or literature.
Approximately 14,000 students experienced Young Audiences programming.
15,414 students attended Young Audiences programming.
Paramount Children’s Performing Arts Series: Sponsor a performing arts series for kids 4-10 years old.
Sponsored three shows:
• Greg Kennedy, Innovative Juggler
• Cinderella • Pippi
Longstocking
Sponsored three shows:
• Charlotte’s Web
• Fred Barbo Inflatable Theater Co.
• Alice in Wonderland
Sponsored three shows:
• Angelina Ballerina
• The Magic of Bill Blagg
• The Wizard of Oz
Sponsored three shows:
• Sleeping Beauty
• Imaginocean • Pinkalicious
Sponsored three shows:
• Skippyjon Jones
• Popovich • Fancy Nancy
the Musical
Sponsored four shows:
• Fly Guy and Other Stories
• Mark Nizer • The Jungle
Book • Pinkalicious
Sponsored five shows:
• The Adventures of Bella and Harry-Let’s Visit London!
• Laura Ingalls Wilder
• The Ugly Duckling
• The Little Mermaid
• The Greatest Pirate Story Never Told
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 31 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 28
Goal FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17
Grant Assistance Program: Assist local organizations in program development through a financial assistance program.
Issued 34 grants totaling $135,600 in grants to local arts and culture organizations.
Issued 36 grants totaling $198,600 to local arts and culture organizations.
Issued 36 grants totaling $152,100 to local arts and culture organizations.
Issued 35 grants totaling $148,700 to local arts and culture organizations.
Issued 38 grants totaling $153,100 to local arts and culture organizations.
Issued 36 grants totaling $146,818 to local arts and culture organizations.
Issued 35 grants totaling $144,700 to local arts and culture organizations.
HeArts for the ARTSW: Solicit $20,000 in donations to augment the grants budget.
Solicited $12,616 to support grants budget.
Solicited $26,658 to support grants budget.
Solicited $30,693 to support grants budget.
Solicited $20,575 to support grants budget.
Solicited $31,382 to support grants budget.
Solicited $21,254 to support the grants budget.
Solicited $15,707 to support grants budget.
Cultural Tourism: Develop the platform to attract cultural visitors through materials produced.
Brochures , e-newsletter, and Abilene Scene produced.
Brochures , e-newsletter, and Abilene Scene produced.
Brochures , e-newsletter, and Abilene Scene produced.
Brochures, e-newsletter, and Abilene Scene produced.
Transitioned to Storybook Capital of Texas Marketing Platform.
Brochures, e-newsletter, and Abilene Scene produced.
Brochures, e-newsletter, and Abilene Scene produced.
Artfully Abilene Art and Culture Weekends: Collaborate with arts and downtown organizations to promote quarterly arts and culture weekends.
Developed e-newsletter and Abilene Scene.
Developed e-newsletter and Abilene Scene.
Developed e-newsletter and Abilene Scene.
Developed e-newsletter and Abilene Scene.
Developed e-newsletter and Abilene Scene.
Developed e-newsletter and Abilene Scene.
Developed e-newsletter and Abilene Scene.
Children’s Art & Literacy Festival: Coordinate festival.
N/A. Storybook Sculpture Project began in 2012.
N/A 1,732 2,721 3,706 4,319 4,780
Storybook Sculpture Project: Commission additional sculptures to place in Everman Park.
N/A. Storybook Sculpture Project began in 2012.
Purchased Cat in the Hat Sculpture.
Added five Dr. Seuss sculptures:
• The Grinch • Horton • The Lorax • Yertle the
Turtle • Sam I Am
Added seven sculptures:
• Seymour • Sanderson
Mansnoozie • Nicholas St.
North • Toothiana • Jack Frost • E. Aster
Bunnymund • Man in the
Moon
Added three sculptures:
• Duck on a Boke
• No, David! • Fergus
Added Good Night Dinosaur sculpture.
Added five sculptures:
• Charlotte’s Web
• Stuart Little • The Three
Little Pigs • The Three
Little Kittens • Goldilocks
and the Three Bears
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 32 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 29
Goal FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17
Abilene Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition: Coordinate a weekend of sculpture. The Abilene Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition is a Biennial Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition that provides new outdoor sculptures on a biennial basis.
Featured sculptures by James Surls, Charmaine Locke, Tara Conley, Sherry Owens, Tai Pomara, Laura Scandrett, and George Tobolowsky.
Featured sculptures by James Surls, Charmaine Locke, Tara Conley, Sherry Owens, Tai Pomara, Laura Scandrett, and George Tobolowsky.
Featured sculptures by Robbie Barber, Kurt Dyrhaug, Julia Ousley, and Tanya Synar.
Featured sculptures by Robbie Barber, Kurt Dyrhaug, Julia Ousley, and Tanya Synar.
Featured sculptures by Ken Little, Jeffie Brewer, Simon Salah, and Lauren Selden.
Featured sculptures by Ken Little, Jeffie Brewer, Simon Salah, and Lauren Selden.
Featured sculptures by Peter Mangan, Meredith Jack, Noah Edmunson, and Stephan Daly.
Voices in America: Partner with ACVB on a short-form documentary featuring Abilene.
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Began developing a television segment on the “Storybook Capital of Texas” for PBS.
Began developing a television segment on the “Storybook Capital of Texas” for PBS, which began airing in late 2016-17.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 33 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 30
In addition to providing local programming, the ACAC has the potential to collaborate with partners to support additional cultural tourism offerings. Cultural tourists typically stay longer and spend more money than other types of domestic travelers,2 and typically attend festivals, such as the Children’s Arts and Literacy Festival, visit museums, and purchase local products. Through its grant programs, the ACAC supports several local museums and attractions, which help increase cultural tourism in Abilene.
*Frontier Texas! did not report attendance in 2012 because the museum was closed for several months for a redevelopment effort.
Additionally, the ACAC plans, coordinates, and executes Abilene’s annual Children’s Arts and Literacy Festival (CALF), which brought in a total of 5,172 attendees from 119 Texas cities and 12 states in 2018. According to ACAC and ACVB estimates, CALF generated 112 families staying in hotels and an overall $68,420 in economic impact.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROGRAM COST ACCOUNTING
10 FINDING The ACAC’s use of HOT funds cannot be isolated from other sources of revenue because expenditures were not accounted for on a program cost basis.
RECOMMENDATION Establish a group of accounts within the ACAC’s financial accounting system that can be used to record expenditures paid by HOT revenues.
Based on our inquiry of accounting personnel and inspection of the ACAC's general ledger, we determined that the ACAC did not account for costs incurred on a program cost accounting basis. Therefore, we were not able to determine which activities were paid with HOT funds.
To ensure financial information is presented appropriately, in a manner where financial information related to HOT funds are expressed clearly, the ACAC should establish additional accounts within their
2 Cultural Tourism: Attracting Visitors and Their Spending; 2014 National Cultural Districts Exchange
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Grace Museum Attendance 56,020 43,834 47,555 55,000 63,006 64,646 65,474Paramount Theatre Attendance 43,064 48,044 47,503 54,253 53,248 50,652 52,600Frontier Texas 28,829 - 35,398 34,835 40,149 35,457 34,417
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Attendance at Abilene Museums and Attractions
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 34 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 31
chart of accounts to record program expenditures paid by HOT funds. Accounting for costs in this manner supports oversight of the use of HOT revenues by tracing costs to activities related to the HOT program. This practice helps ensure revenues are utilized in accordance with State law and increases transparency in the use of funds.
FUND SEGREGATION
11 FINDING HOT revenues were comingled with money from other revenue sources in the ACAC’s general operating bank account, contrary to State law.
RECOMMENDATION The ACAC should establish a separate bank account to segregate HOT funds from other revenue sources.
During our review, we identified that HOT revenues were maintained in the ACAC’s general operating bank account, which held revenue from other sources, including grants and other miscellaneous sources. Section 351.101(c) of the Texas Tax Code, which governs program activities delegated to a person by the City, states in part,
“The person must maintain revenue provided from the tax authorized by this chapter in a separate account established for that purpose and may not commingle that revenue with any other money...
...The approval by the governing body of the municipality of the annual budget of the person to whom the governing body delegates those functions creates a fiduciary duty in the person with respect to the revenue provided by the tax authorized by this chapter.”
To comply with State law, the ACAC should establish a separated bank account to segregate HOT-related funds from other revenue sources. Only HOT revenues received from the City as well as program income should be maintained within this bank account.
VENDOR INVOICE APPROVALS
12 FINDING The ACAC presented inconsistent evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for purchases, resulting in an internal control weakness.
RECOMMENDATION Require evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for costs incurred.
Documentation received by the ACAC demonstrated inconsistencies with evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for purchases. Receipts and invoices were paid without evidence of approval of cost incurred (e.g., manager signature on invoice). This weakness in internal controls increases the risk of an erroneous payment.
Additionally, under the ACAC’s current process, evidence of review of checks with supporting voucher packages prior to check issuance is not maintained. Without evidence to support a review was performed, there is an increased risk of being able to detect the issuance of an erroneous payment. To mitigate such risks, control activities should be implemented to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Examples of control activities include:
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 35 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 32
• Establishing/updating documented policies and procedures related to expenditures (e.g., procurement and purchasing requirements, segregation of duties, approval thresholds, business purpose justification, supporting documentation requirements, etc.)
• Establishing documentation standards (e.g., the use of standardized forms for internal requests and reporting)
• Performing workplace practices based on established policies and procedures (e.g., performing reviews and reconciliations through the expenditure cycle and maintaining evidence of reviewer approval)
• Implementing logical and physical access controls through the use of technology and physical barriers (e.g., user account permissions, maintain records in secured filing cabinets, etc.)
• Outsourcing an entire or partial process to be performed by a third party (e.g., qualified individual or service organization)
ASSET PLANNING
13 FINDING There are opportunities to increase collaboration between the ACAC and the City regarding cultural asset planning and maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION Develop a collaborative planning process and funding strategy to support ongoing maintenance costs of sculptures and other cultural assets.
In pursuit of its mission, the ACAC often adds cultural assets to the City. For example, approximately one to three storybook statues are typically added annually in advance of the CALF. After ACAC establishes the asset, the City has historically taken over maintenance activities. However, the City does not set aside funds for ongoing maintenance of the statues during planning.
As the City’s cultural assets grow, so does the cost of maintaining those assets. In order to ensure that the City can sustainably maintain all storybook sculptures, the ACAC should collaborate with the City to plan for asset establishment and long-term maintenance costs, based on their number, volume, size, materials, and other potential specifications. The City and ACAC should establish a planning process to ensure sufficient time and notice are provided in advance of the addition of sculptures or other cultural assets the City maintains. Additionally, the City should establish a funding strategy to ensure sculptures are appropriately maintained to retain their appearance and structural elements. This process enables the City to adequately budget for maintenance costs associated with the sculptures or other cultural assets that the ACAC may renovate or develop.
F. ABILENE CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (ACVB)
BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES The ACVB is tasked with marketing, advertising, and promotional programs designed to attract tourism to the City of Abilene. The ACVB is primarily funded by HOT revenues and receives approximately 50% of total HOT revenues received by the City, as shown in the following table:
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 36 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 33
A C V B H O T R E V E N U E S
Year Budget ($) Actual ($) Expenditures
($)
2011 1,250,000 1,258,786 1,151,807
2012 1,625,000 1,299,039 1,205,604
2013 1,625,000 1,359,353 1,319,104
2014 1,300,000 1,469,324 1,448,370
2015 1,400,000 1,576,474 1,533,162
2016 1,500,000 1,479,784 1,621,250
2017 1,450,000 1,567,144 1,627,779
The ACVB’s primary program expenses consist of advertising and marketing, cultural tourism, visitor services, and convention services. Total program expenses range from approximate 49 to 55% of total expenses incurred during the audit period. See the following table for more details.
A C V B E X P E N D I T U R E S ( $ ) 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Program Expenses
Advertising and Marketing 641,749 676,394 651,817 609,881 526,956 502,695 459,615
Cultural Tourism - - - 7,000 10,500 6,000 7,550
Visitor Services 11,658 19,832 23,406 28,666 23,338 26,429 18,688
Convention Services 210,620 196,271 159,317 148,228 119,976 82,673 81,945
Total Program Expense 864,027 892,497 834,540 793,775 680,770 617,797 567,798
Administrative and General Expenses 189,013 184,816 180,325 179,067 177,100 175,176 175,203
Staff Expenses 574,739 543,937 518,297 475,528 461,234 412,631 408,806
Total Expenses 1,627,779 1,621,250 1,533,162 1,448,370 1,319,104 1,205,604 1,151,807
STAFFING AND RESOURCES To understand the relative efficiency of the ACVB, key statistics, including staffing levels (based on headcount not full-time equivalent), budget, number of visitors, visitor spending, local tax revenue, and tourism-related job creation, were compared to peer Convention and Visitors Bureaus for FY 2016-17. Abilene tends to operate with a leaner staffing model, while generating median visitor direct spending and local tax revenue.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 37 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 34
Abilene
Bryan-College Station Midland Waco1
San Angelo
Governing model Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Commerce
City operated Chamber of Commerce
Number of staff (headcount)
8 11 n/a 12 12
Budget $1,751,900 $1,182,916 $1,638,668 $4,924,980 $865,000
Number of visitors (million) 3.83 - 1.80 2.55 -
1Staff and budget data include both the Waco Convention Center and Waco Convention and Visitors Bureau information.
GOAL SETTING AND ATTAINMENT The ACVB sets short and long-term goals in its annual marketing plans. Each year’s goals tend to be unique, with emphasis on differing events such as marketing campaigns, local marketing, and advocacy in support of tourism products. Overall, the ACVB has largely achieved its board-determined goals. In addition, their marketing efforts have helped support increased tourism to the city, as noted in Section IV.B.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 38 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 35
F Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 F Y 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 F Y 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 F Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Tour
ism
Increase future hotel bookings by 10% with events, meetings, conventions, sports, reunions, and tours.
Booked 40,156 room nights – increased 17.5%
Increase future hotel bookings by 10% with events, meetings, conventions, sports, reunions, and tours.
Booked 39,135 – did not achieve goal
Increase future hotel bookings by 10% with events, meetings, conventions, sports, reunions, and tours.
Booked 60,832 with multiple year contract for 5 years.
Goal achieved-55% increase
Increase future hotel bookings by 10% with events, meetings, conventions, sports, reunions, and tours.
Hotel bookings increased 21%
Support product development
Work with Texas Hotel & Lodging to increase Abilene’s per diem.
Initiated a reversal of the state per diem to align with the federal per diem for cities in Texas with a federal per diem of $77. Successfully increased state per diem to $85.
Secure multi-year contracts with State 4-H Horse Show and Texas High School Rodeo Finals.
Achieved; received multi-year contracts.
Actively solicit a downtown hotel.
Worked with DCOA on hotel market study.
Work with GSA to increase federal per diem.
Abilene’s federal per diem increased to $89
Mar
ketin
g C
ampa
igns
Grow leisure travel market to Abilene targeting the top five feeder destinations.
Participated in travel shows targeting leisure travelers’ groups: Texas Travel Fair, ABA, NTA, Team Texas, Texas Approach, Co-ops with Texas Forts Trail.
Produced two new TV commercials that were played on the following markets: Midland/Odessa, San Angelo, Lubbock.
Create and implement a sports marketing campaign.
Developed “Abilene, Where Champions Are Made” campaign and produced ads, videos, and literature.
Produced a sports guide.
Support product development to increase visitors and enhance the visitor experience.
Provided hospitality training for employees of local hotels and attractions to support superior customer service.
Provided “Bellman On Call” service using local residents to help large groups handle luggage at hotels.
Leveraged social media to raise brand awareness for Abilene.
Implements “BEEF” up your meetings! Be eventful, experiential and fun in meeting planning and win a Perini Ranch tenderloin.
Support and promote product development to increase visitors and enhance the visitor experience.
Implemented an online version – CHAMPions of Abilene.
Worked with PR firms to coordinate annual press trips, journalists, travel writers, and additional coverage for Abilene, generating over $1 million of free PR for Abilene.
Promoted Frontier Texas’ redevelopment in state publications.
Promoted Back Porch of Texas as a place for convention activities and Music venue.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 39 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 36
F Y 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 F Y 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 F Y 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 F Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Secured Bob Phillips’ Texas Country Reporter coverage of Frontier Texas!
Increase Abilene’s position as a desirable location for visitors through advertising, promotion, and public-relations generated media value.
Received a Gold Addy for the Abilene presentation folder.
Weekly event segment on KRBD 6 pm news.
Marketing Campaign to promote CALF.
Promoted CALF at travel shows and submitted the new annual event for PR. Hosted journalists for CALF.
Implement an integrated seasonal campaign that will produce hotel stays during slower months.
Created “Santa Savings” program for discounts at hotels, attractions, and businesses during mid-November to New Years.
Implement an integrated seasonal campaign that will produce hotel stays during slower months.
Implemented a seasonal campaign to promote Abilene visitation over the holidays.
Engage meeting planners and increase attendance through social media
Received a Gold Addy for Project 365 Social Media Campaign.
Produced and implemented YOUR24 Video Campaign.
Produced QR codes for sports, trade shows and advertising
Redesign and launch a revamped “smart” version of the Abilene CVB mobile site.
ACVB went mobile. Redesigned to better interact with the public and other social media platforms
Produced and implemented Pinterest Campaign – Abilene is very, very pinteresting.
Implement a hotel booking site to encourage reunions, Abilene packages and create additional hotel stays.
Partnered with aRES and implemented a hotel booking system on our website.
Loca
l Dev
elop
men
t
Implement a convention sales committee to promote Abilene as an attractive meeting site.
Research the potential of a southside conference center
Implemented new hospitality program “Checkout your own backyard”
Develop a new campaign to reach the heart and soul of local residents to bolster Abilene as a place for meetings and events.
Launched local “I Am Abilene” campaign.
Activated Task forces to research growth in sports, Expo Center events and conventions
Long-term strategic Business Plan were initiated and projects identified to create tourism growth.
Continue implementation of public awareness campaign, “I Am Abilene,” that works to showcase the City as an ideal travel destination to meet, play, and visit.
Continued local “I Am Abilene” campaign.
Continue the highly successful campaign.
Continue implementation of public awareness campaign, “I Am Abilene,” that works to showcase the City as an ideal travel destination to meet, play, and visit.
Named #18 of the Top 40 Travel Destinations in Texas by readers of Texas Highway Magazine.
Initiated new phases of the “I Am Abilene” campaign and was awarded the Gold Addy by the American Advertising Federation, District 10.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 40 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 37
F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Tour
ism
Increase future hotel bookings by 5% with events, meetings, conventions, sports, reunions, and tours.
Hotel bookings increased 12%
Increase future hotel bookings by 5% with events, meetings, conventions, sports, reunions, and tours.
Hotel bookings decreased 10%
Expand hotel room bookings by 5%.
Hotel bookings increased 5%
Actively solicit a convention hotel
Provided updates for RFQ.
Actively research potential conventions to utilize a convention hotel.
Develop a hotel partner appreciation program.
Recognized hotels for responding to ACVB leads.
Create hotel packages for 2017 CALF with hospitality partners and ACAC.
Created a package with local hotels.
Support legislation to keep the Events Trust Fund.
Successfully advocated with tourism partners and elected officials to maintain (and fund) the Events Trust Fund.
Create “Ideally Abilene” itineraries submitted by multi-generational Abilene residents.
Created “Top 10 things to Live Like a Local” itinerary.
Create “Live Like a Local: Top 10 Things Ya Gotta Do” in Abilene for growth in specific markets.
Launched Live Like a Local itineraries using local residents to encourage visitors to visit, stay, and play as a local would.
Conduct advertising conversion studies to measure the effect of ACVB Advertising.
Completed conversion studies and 92% who have not visited Abilene, plan to within 6 months.
Create family and friends itineraries to promote the Storybook Capital of Texas designation and Abilene zoo giraffe exhibit, etc., to expand leisure market.
Itineraries and videos were created and advertising placed in Convention Publications, Texas Monthly, Southern Living, Travel Living, and Retro media TV placement.
Create a campaign for Harley Owners’ Group State meeting.
Abilene went HOG WILD! ACVB worked with TxDOT for a safety campaign-reminding all to Share the Road. HOG WALK and the parade were very successful – hosting over 2,000 people.
Showcase the city as an ideal travel destination to meet, play and stay.
Promoted the Sayles Landmark to NBC’s Today Show segment and it received a Gold Addy at the Adrian Awards.
Host regional travel workshop for state tourism partners highlighting Abilene’s tourism product, central location, and general assets.
Hosted Travel workshop with 56 attendees, including City staff and State leaders.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 41 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 38
F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Mar
ketin
g C
ampa
igns
Create sports related marketing videos and advertising.
Represented Abilene at the National Association of Sports Commissions and TEAMS, the leading marketplaces for sports.
Achieved a Certified Sports Event Executive among ACVB staff.
Created a successful social media campaign, including a video produced by the United State Tennis Association to showcase Abilene’s hosting of the state championship.
Create sports related marketing videos, advertising, and an interactive brochure.
Created new marketing materials, banners, and brochures.
Support product development to increase visitors and enhance the visitor experience.
Provided hospitality training for employees of local hotels and attractions to support superior customer service.
Provided “Bellman On Call” service using local residents to help large groups handle luggage at hotels.
Leveraged social media to raise brand awareness for Abilene.
Improve the awareness of travel - Travel Is Campaign
Created and launched the “Travel Is” campaign for National Tourism Week to build awareness of the tourism industry.
In cooperation with the Abilene Regional Airport, develop an ABI program to connect with passengers diverted to Abilene.
Launched “Re-Routed: Destination ABI” to create a more pleasant travel experience for diverted passengers.
Co-op with Abilene Aero to develop a Destination ABI program to connect with military personnel stopping in Abilene to refuel.
Canceled based on recommendation from Airport management.
Promote the Storybook Capital of Texas designation and Abilene area attractions to families.
Abilene was named in the Top 5 of the “Top 10 Literary Destinations in Texas” by Literacy Tax.
Conducted a national advertisement campaign for the CALF.
Promote 6th Annual CALF, featuring Garth Williams, to national audiences through strong media placements.
Ad placements in Texas Monthly, Texas highways, TravelHost, Southern Living, San Antonio Express, Dallas Morning News, RETRO media buys, billboards, and social media buys.
Create electronic bid proposals, videos, and branch Visit Abilene marketing/promotions to target group businesses.
Purchased new software to create interactive bid proposals.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 42 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 39
F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Loca
l Dev
elop
men
t
Continue implementation of public awareness campaign, “I Am Abilene,” that works to showcase the City as an ideal travel destination to meet, play, and visit.
Continued “I Am Abilene” campaign by writing, directing, and producing campaign pieces.
Continue and broaden local awareness campaigns to showcase the City as an ideal travel destination to meet, play, and visit.
Created and launched the “Big On What Matters” comprehensive advertising campaign to promote the very best of Abilene including sports, heritage, and more.
Continued the “I Am Abilene” campaign.
Increase advocacy efforts to generate stronger local support of travel and tourism and a fuller understanding of our economic impact value to the Abilene economy.
Partnered with Lamar and received billboards to communicate the economic impact of travel. Quarterly reports are sent to city leadership and messages have been created for board members to promote the value of tourism.
Communicate the need for new tourism assets to enhance the visitor experience, specifically a convention hotel, sports complex, and Expo Center improvements.
Developed an ACVB advocacy calendar of events.
Launched mobile website version.
Actively support the downtown convention hotel, AYSA youth sports facility, and Expo Center improvements. Effectively communicate the need for new tourism assets to enhance the visitor experience, specifically a downtown hotel.
Renovations for the Civic Center proceeded, focusing on upgrades for the Exhibit Hall and Kitchen to make it more desirable for meetings and events.
AYSA launched a capital campaign for an $8 million youth sport facility.
Completed feasibility study for a downtown convention hotel was favorable and options are being considered.
Actively support the downtown convention hotel, AYSA’S Youth Sports Center, and Expo Center improvements to secure promising tourism products to maximize economic impact.
Supported Expo bond.
Supplied all documentation for downtown hotel, surveyed meeting planners, and worked with THLA for state funds.
Worked with AYSA to create comprehensive promotional materials/video and helped create a presentation for tourism impact on the community for fundraising.
Improve the awareness of travel and tourism by generating more local awareness through videos, PSAs, and direct messaging.
Created and launched the “Travel Is…” campaign for National Tourism Week to build community awareness of the travel and tourism industry.
Increase advocacy efforts to generate more local support of travel and tourism and its economic value to the Abilene economy.
Created and launched “Live Like a Local” advertising campaign using local residents to extend a personal invitation to potential visitors to visit, stay, and play in Abilene.
With ACAC, advocate Abilene’s designation as the Storybook Capital of Texas
The 89th Legislature designated Abilene as the Storybook Capital of Texas.
Work with local art venues and hotels to create art programs that hotels can offer to their guests.
A calendar of local events is updated monthly and distributed to hotels, media, and venues.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 43 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 40
In addition to the goals and activities measures in the table, the ACVB also conducts the following activities:
• Print advertising using brochures
• Hospitality training for local businesses to provide positive customer service
• Sales blitzes and calls
• Tourism promotion events, such as attending trade shows
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VENDOR INVOICE APPROVALS
14 FINDING The ACVB presented inconsistent evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for purchases, resulting in an internal control weakness.
RECOMMENDATION Require evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for costs incurred.
Documentation received by the ACVB demonstrated inconsistencies with evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for purchases. Receipts and invoices were paid without evidence of approval of cost incurred (e.g., manager signature on invoice). This weakness in internal controls increases the risk of an erroneous payment.
Additionally, under the ACVB’s current process, evidence of review of checks with supporting voucher packages prior to check issuance is not maintained. The lack of evidence to support a review was performed increases risk of being able to detect the issuance of an erroneous payment, as an audit trail is not maintained.
To mitigate such risks, control activities should be implemented to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Examples of control activities include:
• Establishing/updating documented policies and procedures related to expenditures (e.g., procurement and purchasing requirements, segregation of duties, approval thresholds, business purpose justification, supporting documentation requirements, etc.)
• Establishing documentation standards (e.g., the use of standardized forms for internal requests and reporting)
• Performing workplace practices based on established policies and procedures (e.g., performing reviews and reconciliations through the expenditure cycle and maintaining evidence of reviewer approval)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 44 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 41
V. INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. STRATEGIC PLANNING
15 FINDING The four entities that receive HOT revenues do not engage in a formal collaborative planning process to support increased tourism, which could result in missed opportunities to gain efficiencies and increase effectiveness.
RECOMMENDATION Develop a unified 5-year strategic plan to leverage the resources of all HOT recipient organizations and promote accelerated tourism growth.
Although the four entities that receive HOT revenues collaborate on activities, each creates separate annual business plans that may not directly relate to one another. Without cohesive strategic planning, the entities are not maximizing the purpose of the HOT expenditures to support increased tourism in Abilene. Given the distinct areas of focus between each entity, it is difficult to verify if all activities are working cohesively together to increase tourism in the city.
Tourism spurs significant economic activity, both directly and indirectly. To position Abilene to increasingly participate in this vibrant economic sector, the City, in collaboration with all entities receiving HOT revenue, should develop a comprehensive tourism planning and performance framework. This framework should consist of a 3- to 5-year strategic plan and individual entity business plans that include defined goals, performance metrics, and regular reporting of actual to planned performance. A tourism strategic plan provides guidance and directs future efforts and resources to increasing tourist activity in the community. Goals of the strategic planning process should include:
• Creating a collaborative tourism mission, vision, and objectives
• Identifying and exposing Abilene’s competitive edge and unique brand
• Developing tangible strategies to capitalize on tourism opportunities in Abilene that also align with community values and goals
• Defining key activities and actions to implement the tourism plan
• Forming a financial plan to achieve key activities
• Clarifying reporting requirements for all involved entities
A comprehensive tourism strategic plan presents an opportunity to leverage HOT funds cohesively and ensure that they are used in a way that fully supports and maximizes the pursuit of tourism in the city. Using this strategic plan as an input, the entities can continue developing separate annual business plans that tie to the strategic plan but still encompass the other activities and functions of each organization. Business plans should also include outcome-based performance measures with regular reporting.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 45 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 42
B. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND REPORTING
16 FINDING Some agency goals focus on outputs and activities rather than outcomes and, collectively, do not comprehensively address tourism.
RECOMMENDATION Develop outcome-focused performance measures in alignment with a tourism strategic plan and regularly report on progress toward goals.
Performance measures are utilized to measure how effectively an organization achieves key goals and objectives. The current strategic and business plans of the Convention Center, ACOC, ACAC, and ACVB do not specify performance measures that relate to their annual goals. Furthermore, many goals should be revised to ensure alignment with the tourism strategic plan. Performance measures should be reported regularly (e.g., quarterly) to the City and serve as a mechanism to convey progress to the public in a straightforward and intuitive manner.
For the City’s tourism strategic plan to be the most effective, it should establish measures that provide meaningful information on tourism to guide management decisions and the future direction of tourism in Abilene. Typically, organizations establish between two and five performance measures for each area identified in the strategic plan. Entities receiving HOT revenues should establish two layers of performance measures:
1. City-wide tourism performance indicators tied to strategic goals
2. Affiliate performance measures that cascade from City-wide tourism goals and reflect key milestones in business plans
See Recommendation #16 for additional performance measure information.
Additionally, the City and affiliate organizations should adhere to regular reporting schedules to report on progress toward established goals. For example, the organizations should collaborate to produce one annual report detailing the status of tourism in Abilene and its impact on the local community and economy. Individual affiliates should also develop annual reports that detail their successes, challenges, performance measure progress, and upcoming goals.
Depending on the focus of the tourism strategic plan, potential performance indicators for each plan are included below.
CITY-WIDE STRATEGIC PLAN
To capture the level of tourism and impact on the Abilene economy, the City may consider the following performance measures in a tourism strategic plan:
• Percent change in visitors
• Percent change in visitor days
• Hotel occupancy rates
• Annual economic impact of tourism
• Number of new retail shops and restaurants opened
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 46 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 43
• Downtown revitalization efforts
CONVENTION CENTER
The City’s Convention Center should consider augmenting existing metrics with the following performance measures to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness:
• Percentage of local and non-local events
• Customer satisfaction rating
• Percent of repeat business
• Lost opportunity ratio
ABILENE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The ACOC should consider augmenting existing metrics with the following performance measures to evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness:
• Chamber members per FTE
• Membership growth
• Percentage of local businesses belonging to the ACOC
• Job growth
• Business growth and retention
• Legislative and advocacy successes
• Social media reach
• Event participation
ABLIENE CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL
The ACAC should consider augmenting existing metrics with the following performance measures to evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness:
• Public arts projects completed
• Volunteers participating in beautification projects
• Collaboration with downtown revitalization activities
• Attendance at cultural events, such as the CALF, Broadway series, and children’s performing arts series
• Property values
• Presenting opportunities to showcase artists
• Enhancing a destination brand through cultural expression
• Establishing an authentic “sense of community”
• Providing venues and places for tourists to spend money
• Adding a cluster of new experiences to attract tourists and residents
• Revitalizing commercial districts for economic growth cultivated from tourism
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 47 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 44
• Establishing new hubs of cultural vitality to market tourists
ABILENE CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU
The ACVB should consider augmenting existing metrics with the following performance measures to evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness:
• Hotel room nights generated
• Travel articles generated
• Website visitation
• Social media reach
• Advertising reach and effectiveness measures, such as conversion rates
• Cost per lead
• Cost per booking
• Events generated, with a possible breakdown of the event type (convention, exhibition, trade show, sporting event, etc.)
C. INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
17 FINDING Although the Convention Center, ACOC, ACAC, and ACVB regularly collaborate informally on key events and activities, there are additional opportunities to collaborate among the organizations and other local organizations.
RECOMMENDATION Foster increased interagency collaboration by establishing regular meeting schedules to build relationships, include additional interagency performance measures in annual goals, and provide opportunities to collaborate with other local organizations.
Many of the activities and events that promote tourism in Abilene are related and could benefit from interagency collaboration. Affiliate leadership reports that they coordinate with one another on an individual basis as needs arise; however, that approach may result in lost opportunities to market a particular event or coordinate with local businesses on days with high levels of tourism.
To better enable the effective use of resources and promote tourism, affiliates should take steps to increase collaboration among leadership. Management of interrelated activities with a mutual benefit should be formalized by instituting regularly scheduled meetings. These meetings provide would leadership with an opportunity to discuss key events and activities and facilitate coordination and collaboration between the organizations. The City may also wish to also appoint a designated program manager over tourism in Abilene to serve as a key liaison for the City and the affiliate organizations receiving HOT revenues.
In addition to ensuring alignment among the organizations actively receiving HOT revenues, the appointed liaison should also foster relationships with other community organizations that impact tourism. For example, the Abilene Downtown Association should be engaged in tourism and ACAC activities, as context-specific development tends to draw tourists and investment into downtown areas.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 48 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 45
Particularly as the downtown hotel is built, downtown revitalization will become an increasingly important element of tourism in the city.
D. SUCCESSION PLANNING
18 FINDING The ACAC and ACVB have small workforces with extensive experience, but they have not developed succession plans to fill key positions.
RECOMMENDATION Develop a strategy to address succession planning for key positions in the ACAC and ACVB to ensure operational continuity and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders.
The ACAC and ACVB both have experienced, highly regarded, and well-connected employees in key positions. These employees benefit both their individual organizations and the City of Abilene with their historical knowledge, understanding of the work, and community relationships. To ensure that these valuable qualities are retained by the organizations over time, the ACAC and ACVB should embark on workforce planning efforts.
The ACOC and affiliate leadership should develop a strategy and timeline for the development of a workforce development plan. The plan should focus on retaining institutional knowledge and ways for employees to develop a career ladder. An effective workforce planning process should contain the following information:
• Active executive involvement
• Integration with the organization’s strategic plan
• Processes to identify essential positions and their critical competencies
• Procedures to identify, promote, and select high potential staff, along with plans for individual career development
• Procedures to monitor individual development through coaching, mentoring, and performance management
• Methods to identify and fill gaps (e.g., strengthen internal capabilities and/or recruit externally)
• Regular plan review to ensure effectiveness
Without workforce planning efforts, the ACVB and ACAC are both at risk of losing institutional knowledge of employees and interrupting operations. Adequate planning is particularly important because a significant amount of the ACAC and ACVB’s work is relationship-based. The workforce plan should include a multi-year hiring plan for senior and executive leadership, based on projected promotions, resource needs analysis, and budget availability. Management training and development should also become a focus as part of career development and workforce planning.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 49 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 46
E. LEASE CONTRACT
19 FINDING The City is leasing the T&P Passenger Depot Building to the ACOC and its affiliates under the terms of an expired lease contract.
RECOMMENDATION Draft a new lease agreement or amendment to the existing contract to address the current operating relationship between the entities.
The City leases the T&P Passenger Depot Building to the ACOC and its affiliates under the terms of an expired lease contract. Per the lease agreement, the termination date was September 31, 2008, with an option to automatically renew for three additional 2-year terms. The building is currently being leased on a month-to-month basis under the same terms.
To mitigate the risk of non-compliance by all parties, a new lease agreement or amendment to the current contract should be issued to address the current operating relationship between the entities.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 50 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit for the City of Abilene 47
APPENDIX A: USE OF TAX REVENUE The following is a summary of how revenue from the municipal HOT may be used to promote tourism and the convention and hotel industry, in accordance with Texas Tax Code 351.101(a):
1. The acquisition of sites for and the construction, improvement, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operation, and maintenance of convention center facilities or visitor information centers, or both.
2. The furnishing of facilities, personnel, and materials for the registration of convention delegates or registrants.
3. Advertising and conducting solicitations and promotional programs to attract tourists and convention delegates or registrants to the municipality or its vicinity.
4. The encouragement, promotion, improvement, and application of the arts, including instrumental and vocal music, dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture, design and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, motion pictures, radio, television, tape and sound recording, and other arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of these major art forms.
5. Historical restoration and preservation projects or activities or advertising and conducting solicitations and promotional programs to encourage tourists and convention delegates to visit preserved historic sites or museums:
a. at or in the immediate vicinity of convention center facilities or visitor information centers; or
b. located elsewhere in the municipality or its vicinity that would be frequented by tourists and convention delegates.
6. Expenses, including promotion expenses, directly related to a sporting event in which the majority of participants are tourists who substantially increase economic activity at hotels and motels within the municipality or its vicinity, if the specified criteria under the code is met.
7. The promotion of tourism by the enhancement and upgrading of existing sports facilities or fields, if the municipality meets the specific criteria under the code.
8. The construction, improvement, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operation, and maintenance of a coliseum or multiuse facility, if the municipality meets the specific criteria under the code.
9. Signage directing the public to sights and attractions that are visited frequently by hotel guests in the municipality.
10. The construction, improvement, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operation, and maintenance of a coliseum or multiuse facility, if the municipality meets the specific criteria under the code.
Please review Texas Tax Code Section 351.101 for more information about the uses of funds collected by hotel occupancy tax. Additional insight and guidance is available in the Texas Hotel & Lodging Association’s publication, What Cities Need to Know to Administer Municipal Hotel Occupancy Taxes (2014), available through their website at www.texaslodging.com.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 51 of 69
Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit
October 9, 2018
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 53 of 69
• Hotel owners, operators, and managers in the City of Abilene (the City) collect a 13% hotel occupancy tax (HOT)
• 6% is remitted to the State of Texas
• 7% is retained by the City
• In FY 2017, HOT revenues were $3.2 million
• According to State law, HOT revenues must be spent on activities that directly enhance and promote tourism.
• 35% of HOT revenues support the maintenance and operations of the Abilene Convention Center, managed by the City.
• The City contracts with the Abilene Chamber of Commerce (ACOC) to expend a portion of HOT revenues, which are passed on to:
• The Abilene Cultural Affairs Council (ACAC) (15%)
• The Abilene Convention and Visitors Bureau (ACVB) (50%).
2
Background
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 54 of 69
• Conduct a performance audit of the City's professional services agreement with the ACOC for the expenditure of HOT revenues by the ACVB and the ACAC.
• Assess compliance with Texas State Law in the expenditure of HOT revenues.
• Evaluate the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of HOT revenues in promoting tourism and the hotel and convention industry, including an assessment of tourism in the City, administration of activities and funds, strategic planning, and business plans.
Scope of Work
3
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 55 of 69
For fiscal years 2011 to 2017, determine:
1. Does the ACVB efficiently and effectively spend HOT revenues to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives as set forth by the ACVB Board of Directors?
2. Does the ACAC efficiently and effectively spend HOT revenues to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives as set forth by the ACAC Board of Directors?
3. Does the ACOC, as the parent entity of the ACVB and ACAC, efficiently and effectively spend HOT revenues to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives as forth by the ACOC Board of Directors?
4. Are the expenditures made by the three entities (ACVB, ACAC, and ACOC) in keeping with current best practices and effective in promoting, encouraging, and increasing hotel night stays?
5. Are there adequate controls to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of HOT revenues remitted to the ACVB, ACAC, and ACOC by the City of Abilene, Texas?
6. The City also receives HOT. Are the expenditures made by the City in keeping with current best practices and effective in promoting, encouraging, and increasing hotel night stays?
4
Audit Objectives
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 56 of 69
• Collaborative culture between the City, ACOC, ACVB, and ACAC
• Active Board engagement across entities and within the community
• Revenue and tourism growth
5
Commendations
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 57 of 69
• 19 total findings and recommendations
• 2 overall findings
• 5 interagency findings
• 12 agency-specific findings
• Opportunities for improving efficiency and effectiveness of program delivery:
• Formalizing communication and collaboration between the City and partners
• Addressing internal controls and workforce opportunities common to small entities
• Improving planning to focus on outcomes
6
Performance Audit Results
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 58 of 69
1. Finding: The contract between the City and ACOC has not been updated since its issuance in 1981.
Recommendation: Develop a new contract between the City and ACOC to ensure the contract supports the City’s goals, addresses contemporary business needs, and is compliant with relevant laws and regulations.
7
HOT Revenue Contract
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 59 of 69
2. Finding: The number of visitors in Abilene increased 34.9% between 2011 and 2017, resulting in 26.4% additional local tax receipts generated from tourism.
Recommendation: Continue efforts to increase tourism in the City through hosting events, providing and advertising cultural tourism attractions, and economic development
8
Tourism in Abilene
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 60 of 69
3. Finding: In FY 2017, Convention Center bookings that generated hotel stays comprised approximately 56% of total bookings. However, the City may have used HOT revenues to fund Convention Center activities unrelated to convention events or meetings that directly promote tourism and the hotel and convention industry.
Recommendation:
A. Identify allowable use of HOT revenues for Convention Center activities in accordance with Texas Tax Code 351.101.
B. Establish a formal methodology for determining if booked Convention Center events meet the requirements for use of HOT funds.
C. Establish a cost allocation plan to allocate appropriate indirect costs incurred in hosting non-local events.
D. Collaborate with the ACVB to increase the percentage of non-local Convention Center bookings to enable utilization of HOT revenues in support of operational costs.Continue to take measures to centralize and strengthen grants management.
9
City of Abilene: Convention Center
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 61 of 69
4. Finding: The Convention Center’s use of HOT funds cannot be isolated from other sources of revenue to verify use because expenditures were not accounted for on a program cost basis.
Recommendation: Establish a group of accounts within the City’s financial accounting system that can be used to record expenditures related to the HOT program.
5. Finding: Despite various renovations and upgrades in recent years, the Convention Center requires significant physical and technological upgrades to meet business needs.
Recommendation: Continue developing a funding strategy to address Convention Center renovations to ensure it remains a competitive venue to host events.
6. Finding: The Convention Center is often used to host local events, sometimes at the expense of non-local gatherings that are more likely to spur tourism.
Recommendation: Revise the Convention Center’s booking policy to further prioritize non-local utilization and collaborate with the ACVB to explore new opportunities and incentives tooffer to potential event hosts.
10
City of Abilene: Convention Center
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 62 of 69
7. Finding: Related party contracts or memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are not in place between the ACOC and its affiliates for management and accounting services provided to the ACAC and ACVB.
Recommendation: Develop MOUs or define roles and responsibilities in contracts to ensure management and accounting fees are properly defined, established, and monitored.
8. Finding: The ACOC’s management fee for support services charged to the affiliates is based on a percentage of revenues received by the ACVB and ACAC rather than actual costs incurred by the ACOC.
Recommendation: Charges for services between related parties should be based on actual costs incurred, up to an established limit.
9. Finding: Financial services for the ACOC, ACAC, and ACVB are not suitably segregated to minimize organizational risk of erroneous or unauthorized transactions.
Recommendation: To protect ACOC and affiliate assets, reallocate duties among existing staff to ensure appropriate segregation of duties and reduce risks to an acceptable level.
11
Abilene Chamber of Commerce
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 63 of 69
10.Finding: The ACAC’s use of HOT funds cannot be isolated from other sources of revenue because expenditures were not accounted for on a program cost basis.
Recommendation: Establish a group of accounts within the ACAC’s financial accounting system that can be used to record expenditures paid by HOT revenues.
11. Finding: HOT revenues were comingled with money from other revenue sources in the ACAC’s general operating bank account, contrary to State law.
Recommendation: Establish a separate bank account to segregate HOT funds.12
Abilene Cultural Affairs Council
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 64 of 69
12. Finding: The ACAC presented inconsistent evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for purchases, resulting in an internal control weakness.
Recommendation: Require evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for costs incurred.
13. Finding: There are opportunities to increase collaboration between the ACAC and the City regarding cultural asset planning and maintenance.
Recommendation: Develop a collaborative planning process and funding strategy to support ongoing maintenance costs of sculptures and other cultural assets.
13
Abilene Cultural Affairs Council
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 65 of 69
14. Finding: The ACVB presented inconsistent evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for purchases, resulting in an internal control weakness.
Recommendation: Require evidence of review and approval of vendor invoices and receipts for costs incurred.
14
Abilene Convention and Visitors Bureau
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 66 of 69
15. Finding: The four entities that receive HOT revenues do not engage in a formal collaborative planning process to support increased tourism, which could result in missed opportunities to gain efficiencies and increase effectiveness.
Recommendation: Develop a unified 5-year strategic plan to leverage the resources of all HOT recipient organizations and promote accelerated tourism growth.
16.Finding: Some agency goals focus on outputs and activities rather than outcomes and, collectively, do not comprehensively address tourism.
Recommendation: Develop outcome-focused performance measures in alignment with a tourism strategic plan and regularly report on progress toward goals.
15
Interagency Collaboration
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 67 of 69
17. Finding: Although the Convention Center, ACOC, ACAC, and ACVB regularly collaborate informally on key events and activities, there are additional opportunities to collaborate among the organizations and other local organizations.
Recommendation: Foster increased interagency collaboration by establishing regular meeting schedules to build relationships, include additional interagency performance measures in annual goals, and provide opportunities to collaborate with other local organizations.
16
Interagency Collaboration
18. Finding: The ACAC and ACVB have small workforces with extensive experience, but they have not
developed succession plans to fill key positions.
Recommendation: Develop a strategy to address succession planning for key positions in the ACAC and ACVB to ensure operational continuity and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders.
19. Finding: The City is leasing the T&P Passenger Depot Building to the ACOC and its affiliates underthe terms of an expired lease contract.
Recommendation: Draft a new lease agreement or amendment to the existing contract to address the current operating relationship between the entities.City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 68 of 69
The material appearing in this presentation is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as advice of any kind, including, without limitation,
legal, accounting, or investment advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a legal relationship, including, but nor
limited to, an accountant-client relationship. Although this information may have been prepared by professionals, it should not be used as a substitute for
professional services. If legal, accounting, investment, or other professional advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought.
Assurance, tax, and consulting offered through Moss Adams LLP. Wealth management offered through Moss Adams Wealth Advisors LLC. Investment
banking offered through Moss Adams Capital LLC.
17
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, Page 69 of 69
TO: Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Rodney Taylor, Director of Water Utilities
SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction: Water and Wastewater Utility System Cost of Service andRate Structure Update Study and Capital Improvements Discussion (Rodney Taylor)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
City staff, along with a representative of Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) will be presenting asummary of the Water and Wastewater Utility System Cost of Service and Rate Structure Update Study (RateStudy) that was authorized by the City Council on February 23, 2017. The Rate Study evaluated the financialcondition of the water utility, explored methods of allocating water and sewer expenses to each respectiverevenue stream, considered equity between customer classes and the trigger points of the inclining tier ratestructure. A water rate model was developed that is a tool for managing revenues and expenses and for testingrate adjustment scenarios. City staff will also present the recommended 2019-2023 Capital ImprovementsProgram schedule which is a key component in projecting future revenue needs.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Rate Study conducted by Raftelis includes the compilation of extensive amounts of data, performinganalysis, and then incorporating the data into a complex excel based water rate model. The study and ratemodel are generally based on the Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, Manual M1 developed andrefined over the years by the American Water Works Association. Raftelis will present information on theexisting rate structure and then briefly discuss the methodology used in evaluating a rate structure based on truecost of service for separating water revenue and expenses from sewer revenue and expenses. Staff will thenfollow up with a discussion on strategies for future water rate adjustments and recommendations for managingcash reserves. Staff will also present the proposed 2019-2023 Capital Improvements Program for the WaterUtilities Department. Key items for the Council's consideration:Customer Class Reallocation.Making modest, steady rate adjustments in line with O&M and debt service growth.The Ivie Charge and managing the undesignated fund balance.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
NA
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 1 of 33
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
There is no action required of the City Council for this item. Staff is seeking feedback from the council asdescribed above.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypePresentation Water Rate Study Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 2 of 33
Water and Wastewater Utility System Rate Study and Capital
Improvements Program Discussion
October 9, 2018
1City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 3 of 33
• City Council Authorized Rate Study in February 2017.
• Introduction of Presentation by Raftelis.› Summary of Water & Wastewater Rate Study Process.› Current Rate Structure› Evaluation of Cost of Service Allocation
• Staff Led Discussion.› Proposed Path Forward for Water Rates› Capital Improvements Program for years 2019-2023
2City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 4 of 33
Summary of the model• The model is built to the needs of the City.
• User-friendly and flexible so that the City can use it after Raftelis has completed the study
› Allows the City to update the model every year
› Financial forecast for a 10-year period
› Interactive
• Graphical results that allows staff to present results to management and council
3City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 5 of 33
Overview of Rate Study Presentation • Rate Study Process
• Rate Study Objectives
• Rate Setting Principles: Financial Goals and Pricing Objectives
• Financial Planning Model and Results at Existing Rates
• Cost of Service Allocation
• Cost Allocation by Class
• Consumption Patterns by Class
• Rate Design
• Cost of Service Conclusion
4City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 6 of 33
Rate Study Objectives• Evaluate the City’s current rate structure
• Determine cost of service for each utility and customer class
• Evaluate variable and fixed rate structures
• Evaluate existing tiered rate structure design considering customer classes and consumption patterns
• Recommend improvements or revisions to the rate structure
• Evaluate City’s current mechanism for recovering costs for improvements
6City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 8 of 33
Current Rate Design• Residential Rates
• Monthly Minimum Charges by Meter Size
• Tiered Rates for increasing water consumption
• Commercial Rates
• Monthly Minimum Charges by Meter Size
• Tiered Rates for increasing water consumption
• Industrial
• Monthly Minimum Charges by Meter Size and Uniform Volume Rate
• Yard Meter, Wholesale and Dyess
• Uniform Rate7
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 9 of 33
Existing Rate Structure Considerations• Industry is returning to three-tier or multi-tiered residential rate
structure.
• Commercial volume rates are typically uniform or non-tiered.
• Yard Meter Rates are typically at least equal to upper tier of residential class.
• Adjusting Between Variable and Fixed Rates.• Inflating fixed rates can help drought-proof revenue.• Higher fixed rates can negatively impact first tier residential
customers.• Higher fixed rates (lower variable rates) minimizes the impact of
pricing for managing water conservation.
8City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 10 of 33
Future Projection Assumptions• Escalating Factors applied to O&M
• 2% Growth in Annual O&M Budget
• 11% Growth in Group Insurance
• 0.5% Customer Account Growth
• 0.5% Water Consumption Growth
• Assumes both new debt and cash-funding of future capital
• No less than $2M per year cash funding of CIP.
• Cost of Service assumes OH Ivie fee is adjusted to reflect reductions in Ivie debt service.
9City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 11 of 33
Total Revenue Requirement
10
Cost FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
O&M Expenses $36,028,154 $35,323,570 $35,139,015 $35,197,471 $35,986,832 $36,802,160
Debt Service
Existing $17,729,486 $16,814,817 $16,680,409 $16,123,649 $14,479,656 $14,465,415
Proposed $0 $126,941 $983,883 $2,679,730 $5,197,053 $6,843,142
Subtotal $17,729,486 $16,941,758 $17,664,292 $18,803,379 $19,676,709 $21,308,557
Cash-Funded Capital $800,000 $4,650,000 $2,150,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Total $54,557,640 $56,915,328 $54,953,307 $56,000,851 $57,663,541 $60,110,717
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 12 of 33
Financial Forecast at Existing Rates
• Based on FY 2019 O&M budget with known changes – additional crews, equipment; assuming savings from AMR beginning in 2020
• Future Debt Service based on latest Capital Improvement Plan and includes the AMR project
• Existing Rates are sufficient through FY 2021• Rate Increases needed in FY 2022 and FY 2023 11
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Combined Utility
Operating Expenses Existing Debt Service Future Debt Service Total Existing Revenue
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 13 of 33
Financial Forecast at Existing Rates by Utility System
12
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Water Only
Operating Expenses Existing Debt Service
Future Debt Service Transfer to Sewer
Total Existing Revenue
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
$16.00
$18.00
$20.00
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Sewer Only
Operating Expenses Existing Debt Service
Future Debt Service Total Existing Revenue
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 14 of 33
Utility Financial Forecast – Reserve & Coverage
$28.85 $27.10 $27.93 $27.90
$26.39
$22.63
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
O&M Reserve
Ending Balance O&M Reserve Requirement
1.09 1.20 1.17
1.10 1.03
0.92
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Debt Service Coverage
Actual Coverage Coverage Requirement
13City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 15 of 33
Existing Residential Rate Comparisons
14
Abilene Existing
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 16 of 33
Cost of Service
• Cost of Service Methodology
• Findings of water vs. sewer inequity
• Findings of customer class inequity
• Result of cost of service solution to correct both inequities
• Negative impacts related to cost of service
• Potential solutions for correcting customer class inequity only
15City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 17 of 33
Purpose of Cost Allocation Process• Cost of service involves separating water revenue and expenses from
sewer revenue and expenses.
• Determines the amount of revenue that must be recovered from each water customer class based on the costs they impose on the utility.
• Followed the cost allocation principles as adopted by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) M1 Manual
• Recognizes differing service characteristics
• Annual Usage
• Peak Demands
• Number and Size of meters
• Utilities have broad latitude to implement their rate designs
16City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 18 of 33
2019 Allocation of Cost of ServiceCost Water Wastewater Total
O&M Expenses $24,723,386 $10,600,184 $35,323,570
Debt Service
Existing $10,128,539 $6,686,278 $16,814,817
Future $97,361 $0 $97,361
Total $10,225,900 $6,686,278 $16,912,178
Total Revenue Requirements $34,949,286 $17,286,462 $52,235,748
Less:
Revenue from Rates $42,616,007 $11,337,352 $53,953,359
Miscellaneous Revenue $1,231,815 $355,045 $1,586,860
Total Revenue $43,847,822 $11,672,397 $55,520,219
Excess / (Deficit) $8,898,536 ($5,614,065) $3,284,471
% Needed Revenue Increase / (Decrease) (20%) 48% (6%)
17City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 19 of 33
Cost of Service Conclusion
• Cost of service results in a substantial increase to the residential class sewer utility bill.
• Major shifts in revenue collection between classes
18
$33.25 $27.05 $27.56 $27.70 $29.34 $31.07 $32.30
$19.75 $29.63 $29.63 $31.70 $31.70 $31.70 $31.70 $53.00
$56.68 $57.18 $59.40 $61.04 $62.77 $64.00
$-
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Residential Bill5,000 gallons
Residential 5/8" Water Bill Residential 5/8" Sewer Bill Total Bill
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 20 of 33
Path Forward Regarding Water Rates• Customer Class Reallocation
• Consider modest steady rate adjustments in response to changes in O&M expenses and debt service.
• Ivie Fee and managing the undesignated fund balance
19
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Combined Utility
Operating Expenses Existing Debt Service Future Debt Service Total Existing Revenue
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 21 of 33
• The recommended 2019-2023 Capital Improvements Program is dependent on the revenue generated by the current Ivie Charge.
• Certain Ivie Certificates of Obligation mature in the years 2018, 2021, and 2043.
• For Ivie Charge revenue to match Ivie Debt Service:• FY 2018 – Current Ivie Charge at $0.60• FY 2019 – Adjust Ivie Charge to $0.36• FY 2021 – Adjust Ivie Charge to $0.08• FY 2043 – Terminate the Ivie Charge on Water Utility Bills.
• Staff Recommends that the Ivie Charge transition to a permanent per-unit charge for funding Capital Improvements Program projects; the unique Ivie Charge would no longer be displayed on a Municipal Utilities Bill.
Ivie Fee and managing the undesignated fund balance
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 22 of 33
Ivie Fee and managing the undesignated fund balance
• Staff recommends that the current Undesignated Fund Balance above the three months reserve be specifically designated as a unique fund designated for Capital Improvements.
• Revenues would be specifically generated to replenish the fund.
• The fund would be utilized to manage future issuance of debt.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 23 of 33
Water Rates Must be Sufficient to Fund Needed Capital Improvements:Recommended Five Year Capital Improvements Program for years 2019-2023
• 2019 – 12 projects proposed for $34,820,000
• 2020 – 8 projects proposed for $12,480,000
• 2021 – 9 projects proposed for $25,050,000
• 2022 – 9 projects proposed for $36,160,000
• 2023 – 6 projects proposed for $24,380,000
22City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 24 of 33
Total: $34.82
2019* CIP Schedule*2019 CIP includes rollover projects originally slated to be performed in previous years.
5 Planning and Design Construction
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Project Title Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
8060-01-19 SSOI Agreement-Provision 8 (6/30/19) Small Sewer & Manhole Rehab Project $1.50
8070-11-18 Buck Creek Screw Pump Stations Improvements $2.36
8030-04-19 East Lake Road Parallel Water Line $1.72
8060-06-18 Mesquite Forrest Extension Upgrade $0.65
8030-09-18 Lake Fort Phantom Hill Dam Improvements $1.17
8030-12-18 Lake Kirby Dam Improvements $3.90
8050-01-19 Butternut Street, Treadaway to S. 1st (12,270 ft) $1.70
8040-01-19 IDE RO Concentrate Recovery $0.55
8050-13-18 AMR/AMI Water Meter System $18.37
8050-02-19 N. 6th Street (Leggett), N. 1st to Grape $1.35
8050-14-19 Buffalo Gap EST Rehabilitation $1.25
8030-03-18 Clear Fork Pump Station Piping $0.30
Project Number
Project Total
(Millions)
23City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 25 of 33
2019 Fund Breakdown
TWDB CWSRF$18,370,000.00
Fund 575 Cash Basis$2,500,000.00
Undesignated Reserve$4,651,605.99
2009 CO - 578$190,000.00
2012 SRF - 579$416,059.00
2013 CO - 580$642,335.01
2014 CO - 581$1,550,000.00
2015 CO - 582$5,900,000.00
2017 CO - 583$600,000.00
CO Residuals$9,298,394.01
24City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 26 of 33
Total: $12.48
2020 CIP Schedule
5 Planning and Design Construction
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Project Title Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
8040-01-20 Northeast WTP Control System (SCADA) Upgrade $1.15
8050-01-20 South 14th Street 8" Replacement, Willis to Pioneer $0.99
8060-01-20 SSOI Agreement-Provision 9 (3/31/20) Sewer Interceptor Cleaning Project $0.15
8030-01-20 1.0 MG Prison Ground Storage Tank for New Prison Pump Station $1.43
8030-02-20 Prison Pump Station for New Prison GST $1.60
8040-02-20 Northeast WTP East CW roof replacement and Grimes WTP BWT rehab $3.75
8040-03-20 Monofill Facility for disposal of WTP Sludge $1.43
8030-03-20 Lake Fort Phantom Hill PS upgrade $1.98
Project Number
Project Total
(Millions)
25City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 27 of 33
Total: $25.05
2021 CIP Schedule
5 Planning and Design Construction
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
Project Title Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
8070-01-21 Hamby WWTP- Develop Sludge Disposal Site $2.700
8060-01-21 SSOI Agreement-Provision 11 (6/30/22) Small Sewer & Manhole Rehab Project$1.500
8030-01-21 Rehab/replace 42,000 feet existing 30" raw pipeline $9.700
8040-01-21 Grimes WTP BWT rehab $0.610
8050-01-21 South Pioneer 10" Replacement, S. 1st to S. 7th $0.690
8050-02-21 Second Pressure Plane Expansion/Boundary Modification $3.650
8060-02-21 East Highway 80 14" CI Replacement $1.950
8070-02-21 Lytle South Lift Station Expansion $0.750
8030-02-21 Lake Abilene Dam Improvements $3.500
Project Number
Project Total
(Millions)
26City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 28 of 33
2022 CIP Schedule
Total: $36.16
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
Project Title Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
8040-01-22 WTP Capacity Expansion Project Phase 1 $16.500
8060-01-22 SSOI Agreement-Provision 10 (3/31/22) Sewer Interceptor Cleaning Project $0.150
8040-02-22 Northwest 2PP PS (Relocation of HLPS) Improvements to Northwest PS $2.640
8040-03-22 West Side 2PP WL Northwest PS to Buffalo Gap Road $8.100
8030-01-22 PK RO Concentrate Discharge Line $5.600
8050-01-22 South 1st St. 10 Replacement $0.470
8050-02-22 Russel Street 10" Replacement $0.670
8050-03-22 North 1st St. 10" Replacement $0.930
8040-04-22 Elmdale EST recoating $1.100
Project Number
Project Total
(Millions)
Planning and Design Construction
27City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 29 of 33
2023 CIP Schedule
Total: $24.38
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
Project Title Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
8060-01-23 SSOI Agreement-Provision 12 (3/31/23) Sewer Interceptor Cleaning Project $0.15
8040-01-23 WTP Capacity Expansion Project Phase 2 $16.50
8040-02-23 Prison EST recoating $1.08
8070-01-23 Buck Creek Lift Station, Aeration compressors $2.20
8030-01-23 Lake Fort Phantom Hill PS swap $0.35
8050-02-23 1.5 MG 277 Elevated Storage Tank for far west of 2nd PP $4.10
Project Number
Project Total
(Millions)
Planning and Design Construction
28City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 30 of 33
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Beginning Balance $28,849,370 $27,474,261 $28,272,355 $28,209,967 $26,673,372
Revenue
Rate Revenues
Water Revenues $42,616,007 $42,767,349 $42,919,447 $43,072,307 $43,225,930
Sewer Revenues 11,337,352 11,365,455 11,368,046 11,370,650 11,373,267
Total Retail Revenue (Net of Capital) $53,953,359 $54,132,804 $54,287,494 $54,442,957 $54,599,197
Other Revenues
Other Revenue $1,586,860 $1,618,597 $1,650,969 $1,683,989 $1,717,668
Transfer from Other Funds 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Revenue $1,586,860 $1,618,597 $1,650,969 $1,683,989 $1,717,668
Total Revenues $55,540,219 $55,751,401 $55,938,463 $56,126,945 $56,316,865
% Change 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
Revenue Requirements
Operating and Maintenance Expenses $35,323,570 $35,139,015 $35,197,471 $35,986,832 $36,802,160
Debt Service
Existing $16,814,817 $16,680,409 $16,123,649 $14,479,656 $14,465,415
Proposed $126,941 $983,883 $2,679,730 $5,197,053 $6,843,142
Total Debt Service $16,941,758 $17,664,292 $18,803,379 $19,676,709 $21,308,557
Cash-Funded Capital 4,650,000$ 2,150,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Total Revenue Requirements $56,915,328 $54,953,307 $56,000,851 $57,663,541 $60,110,717
% Change 4.3% -3.4% 1.9% 3.0% 4.2%
Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($1,375,109) $798,095 ($62,388) ($1,536,596) ($3,793,852)
% Difference 2.4% 1.5% 0.1% 2.7% 6.3%
Ending Balance $27,474,261 $28,272,355 $28,209,967 $26,673,372 $22,879,520
Budget Summary
29City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 31 of 33
Water and Wastewater Utility System Rate Study and Capital Improvements
Program Discussion
Questions?
31City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12, Page 33 of 33
TO: Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Michael Rice, Asst. City Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation: Abilene Citizen Perceptions Survey (Michael Rice)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Abilene partnered with Abilene Christian University to conduct a Citizen Perceptions Survey forthe Abilene citizens. The survey is a useful tool to help Abilene citizens communicate with City of AbileneElected Officials and staff, and these communications are a tool that assists with the development of futureplans and programs for the City of Abilene. Abilene Christian University has provided the necessary survey result evaluations. Dr. Thomas (Tom) Winterwill present the findings of the Citizen Perceptions survey to the City Council and he will be available fordiscussion on this agenda item.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
The survey was completed in house and in cooperation with ACU, without financial support paid to ACU. The City of Abilene spent $22,804.68 on printing and postage for the surveys to the Abilene citizens.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeSatisfaction Survey Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 1 of 155
CITIZEN SATISFACTION
SURVEY:
CITY OF ABILENE 2018
Kyeonghee Jang, LMSW, PhD
Desiree Sanabria, BS, MSSW Candidate
Thomas L. Winter, LCSW, EDD
Prepared by the Institute for Social and Community Development
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 2 of 154
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary ________________________________________ 4
Performance on City Goals _________________________________________ 5
Evaluation of Satisfaction and Expectations of City Services _______________ 5
Support for Future Development _____________________________________ 8
Open-Ended Questions ___________________________________________ 8
Introduction ______________________________________________ 10
Background to the Study __________________________________________ 10
Methodology of the Study _________________________________________ 11
Population _____________________________________________________ 12
Sample Strategy ________________________________________________ 12
Data Collection and Analysis ______________________________________ 13
Strengths and Weaknesses _______________________________________ 13
Protection of Human Subjects _____________________________________ 14
Sampling Frame ________________________________________________ 14
Findings ________________________________________________ 16
Sample Characteristics ___________________________________________ 16
Ethnicity __________________________________________________________ 16
Age _____________________________________________________________ 17
Gender ___________________________________________________________ 19
Education Level ____________________________________________________ 19
Time in City _______________________________________________________ 19
Housing Type ______________________________________________________ 20
Household Income __________________________________________________ 21
Goal Achievement of the City ________________________________ 22
Achievement of Individual City Goals ________________________________ 22
Analysis by Gender _________________________________________________ 23
Analysis by Ethnicity ________________________________________________ 24
Analysis by Age ____________________________________________________ 25
Analysis by Time in City ______________________________________________ 26
Analysis by Education Level __________________________________________ 27
Analysis by Housing Type ____________________________________________ 28
Analysis by Household Income ________________________________________ 29
Factors of the Overall Attitude to Goal Achievements ___________________ 30
Satisfaction and Major City Functions _________________________ 32
Gap Analysis Description _________________________________________ 32
Summary of Global Satisfaction and Expectations ______________________ 33
Satisfaction _______________________________________________________ 33
Importance ________________________________________________________ 33
Gap Analysis ______________________________________________________ 34
Breakdown by Functions __________________________________________ 35
Quality of Community Services ________________________________________ 36
Public Safety ______________________________________________________ 37
Library Services ____________________________________________________ 38
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 3 of 154
3
Parks and Recreation _______________________________________________ 39
City Maintenance ___________________________________________________ 40
Public Health Services _______________________________________________ 41
Solid Waste Services ________________________________________________ 43
Water and Sewer Services ___________________________________________ 44
Customer Service __________________________________________________ 44
City Communications ________________________________________________ 46
Support for Future Development _____________________________ 47
Support for Street Investments _____________________________________ 47
Support for Street Investments by Ages _________________________________ 47
Support for Street Investments by Gender _______________________________ 49
Support for Street Investments by Median Income Breakdown ________________ 50
Support for Street Investments by Income Level ___________________________ 51
Support for Street Investments by Ethnicity _______________________________ 51
Support for Street Investments by Time of City ____________________________ 52
Support for Street Investments by Housing Type __________________________ 53
Support for Street Investments by Education Level _________________________ 54
Downtown Development __________________________________________ 55
Downtown Development by Generations_________________________________ 55
Downtown Development by Age Categories ______________________________ 56
Downtown Development by Median Income Breakdown _____________________ 57
Downtown Development by Income Level ________________________________ 58
Downtown Development by Ethnicity ___________________________________ 59
Downtown Development by Time in City _________________________________ 60
Downtown Development by Type of Housing _____________________________ 61
Downtown Development by Education Level ______________________________ 62
Bond Election Priorities ___________________________________________ 63
Support for Bond Initiatives by Generations ______________________________ 63
Support for Bond Initiatives by Age Categories ____________________________ 64
Support for Bond Initiatives by Ethnicity _________________________________ 65
Support for Bond Initiatives by Time in City _______________________________ 66
Support for Bond Initiatives by Housing Type _____________________________ 67
Support for Bond Initiatives by Education Level ___________________________ 68
Qualitative Responses _____________________________________ 70
Emergent Themes _______________________________________________ 70
Implications ____________________________________________________ 73
Summary and Conclusions __________________________________ 74
References ______________________________________________ 77
APPENDIX A ____________________________________________ 78
APPENDIX B ____________________________________________ 92
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 4 of 154
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2018 City of Abilene Citizen Survey
This report presents the findings of a survey conducted in the spring of 2018 by
Abilene Christian University’s Institute for Social and Community Development to
determine citizen perceptions of services provided by the City of Abilene, Texas. Using a
strategy that included three approaches to access to the survey (direct mail of paper
surveys, printed invitations to participate with a link to an electronic survey, and email
notification of the survey with an embedded link to the electronic survey), all households
receiving water and sewer services in the city were targeted.
The sampling frame was constituted of all residential households with city water
and waste services (N = 35,991). A total of 4,209 citizens responded (1,540 with paper
surveys and 2,669 completing electronic surveys), representing an 11.7% response rate.
The survey included three major content sections:
Citizen opinions on how well the city is attaining seven (7) primary goals
(effective governance, sound financial discipline, quality of life, well maintained
and reliable municipal infrastructure, excellent service, economic growth, and
community engagement);
Levels of satisfaction and importance on ten (10) key city functions (quality of
community services, public safety, library services, parks and recreation, city
maintenance, public health, solid waste service, water and sewer service,
customer service, and city communications); and,
Citizen opinions about future spending priorities (street maintenance and
improvements, downtown development, and recreational infrastructure
expansion/development).
The survey provided citizens the opportunity to respond to open-ended responses
regarding current issues facing the city, and to identify up to three facilities or amenities
that the City might build to enhance quality of life. Data were also collected on
demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Although the response rate is very respectable for this type of research, the
sample underrepresents some key demographics. African-American and Hispanic
citizens are both seriously underrepresented, as are younger residents. Because water
service is often included in apartment contracts, the sample underrepresents renters.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 5 of 154
5
Consequently, the sample is skewed toward higher income and education levels of
respondents.
Performance on City Goals
Using a 5-point scale with 5 representing “strongly agree” and 1 “strongly
disagree,” citizen assessment of goal attainment can be characterized as only modest,
with an overall average score of 3.13 on all areas, and individual mean scores ranging
from 2.59 (municipal infrastructure) to 3.44 (quality of life). (Mean scores greater than
3.0 represent responses that are generally positive, while scores less than 3.0 suggest
disagreement.) The City is perceived as most effectively meeting goals of quality of life,
community engagement, economic growth and effective governance. Two areas have
mean scores below 3.0 (neutral); municipal infrastructure is the lowest, followed by
financial discipline. Service is rated barely above “neutral” by citizens (Figure A).
Evaluation of Satisfaction and Expectations of City Services
On a 5-point scale with 5 representing “strongly satisfied” and 1 “strongly
dissatisfied,” the overall average level of satisfaction with the ten areas of city services
was 3.63, approaching “somewhat satisfied” (4.0). Citizens expressed the highest
satisfaction with library services, followed closely by public safety (sense of security in a
3.133.44 3.35 3.3 3.24
3.072.91
2.59
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Figure A: Mean Scores on City Goals
Mean Score
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 6 of 154
6
range of city locations and times). The lowest level of satisfaction was with city
maintenance. All other areas fell between the high and low areas, and none fell in the
overall dissatisfaction range, below 3.0 (Figure B).
In terms of importance, the overall average rating of the ten areas of city functions
was 4.26, or between “somewhat” and “very” important. Ranking highest in importance
were water and sewer services and public safety. Lowest in importance were library
services, public health, and parks and recreation. It should be noted that with the
exception of library services and public health, all areas received ratings of greater than
4.0 out of 5, interpreted as “somewhat important” to “very important” (Figure C).
3.63
4.06 3.96 3.77 3.70 3.60 3.59 3.54 3.50 3.46
3.10
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Figure B: Level of Satisfaction with City Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 7 of 154
7
By requesting citizen opinions on both satisfaction and importance of city services,
it is possible to determine where the greatest discrepancies exist (“gap analysis”), with
largest discrepancies suggesting areas needing attention. The largest gaps between
satisfaction and importance were found to be in the areas of city maintenance, water and
sewer services, and quality of community services. Lowest levels of discrepancy
included library services (where performance exceeded expectations), public health, and
parks and recreation. Two additional areas (solid waste services and customer service)
4.26
4.754.52 4.42 4.38 4.37 4.37
4.17 4.083.88
3.7
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Figure C: Importance of City Services
-1.28
-0.98 -0.92-0.85 -0.83
-0.67-0.56
-0.39-0.27
0.37
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Figure D: Gaps between Satisfaction and Expectations
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 8 of 154
8
demonstrated a level of discrepancy between satisfaction and importance that merits
consideration of attention (Figure D).
Fuller discussion of differences, broken down by composite parts of each of the
ten areas, and further examined by major demographic characteristics, are contained in
the full report.
Support for Future Development
Three broad areas of future investment and development were presented; the first
focused on street maintenance and improvement projects, the second on downtown
development, and the third on facility investments related to recreation. Citizens again
were asked to express support or valuing of these options with a 5-point scale, with 5
indicating the highest level of support and 1 the strongest disagreement. Street
improvement was clearly the highest ranking priority, with a mean score of 4.11.
Downtown development followed with a mean score of 3.62, and development of
recreational resources yielding a mean of 2.82, or modest disapproval.
In the area of street improvements, pothole repair was seen as “very important” by
most respondents; only handicap parking had lower than a 4.09 mean ranking of
importance (between somewhat and very important).
None of the five options for downtown development were ranked higher than 3.8
out of 5; the strongest support was found for maintaining the historic atmosphere of
downtown, and creation of open spaces for special events in the downtown area. Least
support was found for the imposition of architectural standards for facades (a curious
finding in light of the expressed value of the historic nature of downtown).
Only one option for bond-supported recreational development was rated by
citizens as “neutral” (3.0) or above, the development of a new recreation center (mean of
3.01). The least supported of the four options was that of a lighted sport complex funded
by increased taxes.
Open-Ended Questions
When given the opportunity to identify the most important issues facing the city,
the most common themes were road and infrastructure repair, water-related issues
(quality, storm drainage, and related issues), economically associated issues (jobs,
business development, growth, and compensation), safety and crime control (including
drug-related crimes, and the enforcement of existing laws), and concerns about tax levels
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 9 of 154
9
(particularly property tax levels). Affordable housing was also mentioned with some
frequency.
Somewhat contradictorily to quantitative findings in the survey, the most frequently
mentioned new facilities or amenities that improve the quality of life in Abilene were
mentioned included parks and recreational resources, followed by street and other
infrastructure improvements. Respondents also identified the need for affordable
housing for low-income and special needs populations (homeless, veterans, single-
parent households).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 10 of 154
10
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a survey conducted in the spring of 2018 to
determine citizen perceptions of services provided by the City of Abilene, Texas. All
citizens with existing residential water services in the city were contacted either by email
or through distribution of a paper survey, a total 35,991 households. Analysis is based
on responses from 4,209 Abilene residents, yielding a response rate of 11.7%. The
survey included questions about all major city services, and was structured to allow
comparisons between perceptions and expectations of those services.
Background to the Study
Discussions about the interest in developing a survey with the purpose of helping
the City get a pulse on citizen’s satisfaction and expectations toward city services began
in 2017 with City Manager Robert Hanna and Assistant City Manager James Childers,
with the outcome identified as the continuous improvement of the living conditions of
residents of Abilene.
The Institute for Social and Community Development, a component of the Abilene
Christian University School of Social Work, works with agencies and governmental
agencies in the West Central Texas area on projects designed to enrich the social and
economic conditions in the region, and utilizes both faculty and graduate students in
projects that can yield added value to partner agencies. In the 2016-2017 academic year,
students in one of the required social work classes were engaged in this study, along
with Dr. Kyeonghee Jang, Assistant Professor of Social Work, to design this satisfaction
survey for the City of Abilene. An initial draft was presented to City representatives in
February of 2017, initiating a review process that lasted from February 2017 to January
2018.
In Spring 2018 arrangements were completed to conduct the study, including final
survey design, defining participants, establishing final sample strategy, and data
collection strategies (including time frames for data collection of both paper and
electronic surveys).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 11 of 154
11
Methodology of the Study
Surveys for the City of Abilene have been conducted in the past by other entities,
such as the one documented from 1979 in which the goal was to create a preservation
program for the city (Abilene, Texas, 1979). This project consisted of creating an
architectural and historical survey of the older areas of Abilene to determine what in
Abilene was worth preserving. The plan was requested by the Department of Planning
and community Development of the City of Abilene and resulted in creating a program on
neighborhood conservation related to maintenance and renovation of existing structures
as well as services, streets, new development, zoning and visual amenities of those
areas. That citizen survey helped the municipal government determine how it was going
to invest its time and money in the coming years.
The current research team proposed to utilize a survey as an all-encompassing
tool to assess citizen satisfaction and expectation for the city of Abilene (see Appendix A
for the actual survey). This specific tool was designed to improve the avenue of
communication to the city by informing city officials of citizen’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction
with local municipal services, facilities, and past, current, and future city oriented events.
As requested by the City, the survey was built on the existing knowledge from
previous citizen surveys (e.g., ones for the cities of Denison, TX, Weatherford TX, and
Abilene, TX). The existing surveys were adapted into one that would allow a process
known as “gap analysis” (the determination of difference between perceptions of service
levels and expectations of those services). This type of analysis facilitates the
identification of strengths and challenges based on the perceptions of residents’
experiences and perceptions on the City services.
Ryzin, Muzzio and Immerwahr (2004) argue that although fire protection, library
services, and recreation facilities are usually the most highly rated services in citizen
surveys, they have little impact in the overall quality and satisfaction of residents.
Instead, police services, street and road surfaces, public schools, and public
transportation are rated as priority factors when determining citizen satisfaction. In fact,
these factors are so large that the researchers discovered a strong link between citizens'
intent to remain or move out of the city in addition to their satisfaction with the city itself
and their confidence in the city’s government.
We believed it would be interesting to see if the findings of this study were
consistent with the previous research, and therefore created a survey of mixed
methodology, with closed- and open-ended questions that covers topics pertinent
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 12 of 154
12
towards life in Abilene: City leadership, Parks and recreation, City Services,
Maintenance, and Public Safety.
Population
The last estimate of Abilene’s population, based on 2010 population census of
117,063, was 121,721 (United States Census, 2015). Based on discussions with city
officials regarding their interest in having a survey that would provide inferential capability
(that is, the ability to project findings from the sample to the population with known
parameters of accuracy and confidence in the findings), the researchers identified
minimum requirements for this expectation.
Using accepted statistical procedures, it was determined that a minimum sample
size of 383 residents would provide findings that would reflect a confidence level of 95%
with a response distribution of 50% (that is, evenly divided opinions on an issue). The
minimum sample size of 383 gives a margin of error of 5% (that is, a 95% certainty that
the actual distribution of responses will be no more than 5% greater or less than the
sample response).
The sampling frame was drawn from the residential listing of households receiving
water services from the City and included all households currently receiving billing.
Sample Strategy
Past research suggests that the response rate to online surveys is low, especially
when comparing them to paper-based surveys that are handed to individuals in person
(Nulty, 2008). To address this potential issue, both paper and online versions of survey
were developed. On both the printed invitations and email invitations a unique survey
number (Access ID) was included so that the person or other family members can enter
this number when completing the survey. This number was used to examine any
patterns in answers compared to geographical areas such as socioeconomic level of the
neighborhood.
From the list of residents with a water bill, we randomly selected those that would
be sent a written invitation plus a paper form of the survey, while others would receive a
written invitations with the link to the online survey, and a third group would receive an
electronic invitation via email with a link to the online survey.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 13 of 154
13
Data Collection and Analysis
Survey data were entered into SPSS statistics software for analysis using a mixed
methodology. First, MailChimp.com allowed for mass emails to be sent to the on-line only
portion of the sample, inviting residents to fill out the online survey. SurveyMonkey.com
then was used as the platform to create and collect the results of the online surveys from
both samples of online respondents (email or traditional mail notification). Transferring of
Survey Monkey data allowed easy exportation of survey results into SPSS software. For
paper surveys, ACU graduate students entered responses manually first into Excel
documents that were then imported into SPSS for analysis.
The following analysis of the data took place:
Descriptive analysis for sample characteristic
Representativeness of the sample: Major statistics (e.g. age, race) were
compared with ones based on Census data.
Gap analysis was conducted by calculating performance gap (i.e., importance
score subtracted by the satisfaction score)
Coding of qualitative data: The answers to the open-ended questions were
grouped and categorized.
Strengths and Weaknesses
When developing topics and questions for the survey, the research team
consulted the following:
2012 Citizen Survey (City of Denison’s) for ideas regarding questionnaire items
(Citizen Survey, n.d.)
2009 Citizen Attitude Survey (Weatherford, TX) for additional information and
ideas
2009 Citizen Survey (Abilene, TX) for areas of concern and expertise within
Abilene (ETC Institute, 2010).
Potential problem of these surveys included length (about 160 questionnaire
items), wordiness, and the observation that were not designed for gap analysis. The goal
of the design of the current study was to reduce the items and to simplify the format.
Mixed methodology (quantitative and qualitative data): The survey mostly consists
of close-ended questions (i.e., responses that can be tallied with their category and
recorded numerically). Additionally, the open-ended questions were included,
representing the qualitative element of this research, as they provide the resident a
chance to express deep and meaningful answers that will inform the city in positive ways.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 14 of 154
14
Through them, researchers are able to take an in-depth look at the pulse of citizen
satisfaction in Abilene.
Language: According to United States Census (2015), Abilene is comprised of the
following racial makeup: white (77.5%), Black (9.6%), Hispanic (24.5%), and other.
Abilene has high Hispanic population (24.5%). This presented a challenge to this
particular survey as not all of Abilene’s Citizens claim English as their primary language.
To remedy this, the survey was translated into a Spanish version (Appendix B includes
the electronic Spanish translation). Given that we do not know the preference language
of the residents of a certain household, the survey and invitation was prepared in
Spanish and English in both paper and electronic form.
Protection of Human Subjects
Since the survey is to be used by the City of Abilene for quality control or program
improvement, it was considered ‘non-research’ and eligible for IRB exemption by the
ACU Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. If it is going to be subsequently used
for generalizable knowledge (e.g., for presentation at academic conferences), we will
seek for an approval from an Internal Review Board in order to prevent any dangers onto
prospective participants in this research project. This process may be achieved by
completing an expedited form at the appropriate time, subject to agreement by the City.
In order to maintain confidentiality of residents, all identifying information was
removed from lists, and in place a survey number (i.e., Access ID) was used to keep
track of respondents.
Sampling Frame
The sampling frame included residents who had residential utility accounts
(N=35,991). The population was divided into three groups: one subgroup (n=15,107)
received email invitations to participate; a second group received mail invitations to
participate that included a paper survey (n=10,000); and, a third group received mail
invitations with the online survey link included (n=10,884).
Table 1 summarizes the number of invitations that were actually sent, the
respondents who submitted a response, and a final calculation of usable surveys
(defined as having at least one valid answer that was submitted).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 15 of 154
15
After data input and exclusion of unusable surveys, the working sample described
in Table 1 includes the total survey respondents (n = 4,209), broken down by online
respondents (n = 2,669) and paper survey respondents (n = 1,540).
Response rate was calculated by dividing the number of usable responses by the
total number of residents receiving notice of the survey. As Table 1 shows, response
rates for the paper survey were higher than for the electronic distribution of information, a
phenomenon that the researchers expected. Overall, however, a respectable rate of
11.7% response was obtained.
Table 1. Response Rates by Delivery Type
Although the surveys (both written and online versions) were made available in
both English and Spanish, only 10 respondents selected the Spanish version of the
survey (all online).1
1 Special thanks should be given to the MSSW students who participated in the development and analysis of this study: Minsuk Jang, MSSW, Abbey Green, MSSW, Debora Viana, MSSW Candidate, Frediane Ndikumana, MSSW Candidate, Kennedy Morrison, MSSW, and Cooper Spruill, MSSW.
Category Full Online Paper
1. Number of cases invited to survey 35,991 25,991 10,000
2. Number of surveys obtained 4,431 2,883 1,548
3. Number of cases with at least one valid answer 4,209 2,669 1,540
Response rate (= 3 / 1) 11.7% 10.3% 15.5%
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 16 of 154
16
FINDINGS
The results of the data are presented in the following sub-sections: 1) Sample
characteristics, 2) Goals, 3) Satisfaction and major city functions, and 4) Opinions about
future spending priorities. Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses is included as a
final section.
Sample Characteristics2
Ethnicity
To make the category of ethnicity consistent with that of U.S. Census data, some
interpolations were made. For example, people who did not answer “Hispanic” but put
other such as Mexican were coded as “Hispanic.” For people who gave specific
information about race but put note of “American” or “It should not matter,” it was coded
as “Prefer not to answer.” Figure 1 and Table 2 present the percentage of each category
out of valid cases, compared to US Census estimate for 2017 July (“U.S. Census Bureau
QuickFacts,” n.d.).
As Figure 1 and Table 2 demonstrate, the survey significantly underrepresents the
largest non-white populations in Abilene, with Hispanic responses less than a third of the
relative population, and African-American less than a sixth of the expected rate. White,
non-Hispanic residents are over-represented by approximately one-third.
2 Note. Regarding on the paper surveys: There are many respondents who did not answer to the question of Hispanic (coded as -99). No answer on Hispanic but identified themselves as one of the races, it is treated (2=not Hispanic).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 17 of 154
17
Figure 1. Ethnicity of Respondents
Table 2. Ethnicity of Respondents
Category Census Full Online Paper
White, NH 59.0 78.6 74.7 82.5
Hispanic (Any) 26.6 7.9 8.9 6.9
African American, NH 10.2 1.6 1.3 2.0
Two or More Races 3.0 3.5 2.9 4.1
Asian, NH 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.4
American Indian and Alaska Native, NH 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.6
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, NH
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Prefer not to answer 7.3 11.2 3.5
Note. NH=Non Hispanic
Age
Similar to the racial and ethnic distribution, there are groups who are over and
under-represented by age in the sample when compared to U.S. Census data (Figure 2
and Table 3). Specifically, persons under 35 years of age, and particularly those under
25 years, are underrepresented. Persons over 55 years of age are significantly
overrepresented in the survey. This may reflect patterns in home ownership versus
rental; younger residents are more likely to rent, and many apartment complexes include
water and sewer as part of the rental fee.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 18 of 154
18
Figure 2. Age of Respondents
Table 3. Age Distribution of the Sample
Category Census Full Online Paper
20 thru 24 12.1 0.6 0.9 0.3
25 thru 29 8.9 2.9 4.5 1.3
30 thru 34 7.3 4.7 7.3 2.1
35 thru 39 5.8 5.2 7.5 3.0
40 thru 44 5.2 4.5 6.6 2.5
45 thru 49 5.1 6.0 8.2 3.8
50 thru 54 5.9 8.1 9.9 6.3
55 thru 59 5.2 10.9 11.8 10.0
60 thru 64 4.8 13.8 14.2 13.4
65 thru 69 3.6 12.6 11.5 13.7
70 thru 74 3.1 10.4 8.1 12.7
75 thru 79 2.2 8.4 4.7 12.1
80 thru 84 2.0 7.0 2.9 11.1
85 years and over 1.8 4.9 1.9 7.8
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 19 of 154
19
Gender
With regard to gender, the distribution does not substantively differ from U.S.
Census data, although females are somewhat underrepresented (Table 4).
Table 4. Gender of the Sample
Category Census Full Online Paper
1 Female 48.4 43.8 44.8 42.8
2 Male 51.6 52.4 50.9 53.9
3 Other 0.9 0.2 1.6
4 I prefer not to answer 2.9 4.1 1.7
Education Level
The difference between online and paper survey respondents with regard to
education is larger than any other demographic characteristics; in this study, residents
with more education (specifically, those with at least some post-secondary education)
tended to respond to online surveys more frequently than those with less education
(Table 5).
Table 5. Education Level
Category Full Online Paper
12th grade or less 2.5 1.0 3.9
High school graduate or GED 11.4 7.8 15.1
Some college/AA degree/Technical school training
29.9 31.7 28.2
College graduate (BA or BS) 30.6 33.2 28.1
Graduate school degree: Master’s or Doctorate degree (MD, PhD, JD, etc.)
22.0 22.6 21.3
I prefer not to answer 3.5 3.7 3.3
Time in City
The majority of respondents to the survey (57.5%) reported having lived in Abilene
for more than 25 years, suggesting a significant under-representation of persons recently
moving to the city (Table 6). Fewer than a quarter of the respondents reported living in
Abilene 10 years or less. While one might expect those living in the city for two years or
less to have incomplete experience with all city functions, the low response rates for
those living in Abilene for three to 15 years, in particular, is curious. Again, this may be
reflective of newer residents being younger and more likely to rent rather than own
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 20 of 154
20
homes, and not be represented in the residential water bill frame. At the same time, it is
noted that those newer residents are more likely to respond to the online survey than
older residents, demonstrating their comfort with technology.
Table 6. Length of Residence
Category Full Online Paper
1 Less than 1 year 1.2 1.2 1.3 2 1-2 years 3.4 4.6 2.3 3 3-5 years 7.1 9.1 5.2
4 6-10 years 7.8 8.5 7.1 5 11-15 years 7.6 8.7 6.5 6 16-25 years 15.3 16.6 13.9
7 More than 25 years 57.5 51.3 63.6
Housing Type
As was expected with the nature of the sampling frame (residential water bills),
homeowners are over-represented in the sample, with only about one in ten reporting
they rent or have other housing arrangements (Table 7). The fact that homeowners are
more aware of their property tax contribution to the local economy likely creates a higher
sense of investment in city services, further contributing to that overrepresentation.
Table 7. Housing
Category Full Online Paper
1 I own my home 89.0 86.9 91.2
2 I rent my home 9.3 11.2 7.4
3 My house is occupied without payment or money or rent
0.7 0.7 0.6
4 I have no permanent residence 0.2 0.1 0.2
0 Other (please specify) 0.7 1.1 0.3
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 21 of 154
21
Household Income
Using data drawn from the Data USA website (2018), the median household
income for Abilene was estimated at $44,473 in 2016. Extrapolating from the
respondents to the survey regarding income (Table 8, below), the survey is characterized
by an overrepresentation of wealthier citizens; the estimated median of the sample is
approximately $62,840.
Table 8. Household Income
Category Full Online Paper
1 Less than $5,000 0.9 0.2 1.6
2 $5,000 - $19,999 6.1 3.0 9.2
3 $20,000 - $49,999 24.2 22.3 26.1
4 $50,000 - $99,999 36.6 39.0 34.2
5 $100,000 - $149,999 20.2 22.8 17.6
6 More than $150,000 12.0 12.7 11.3
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 22 of 154
22
GOAL ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CITY
In order to investigate how the residents think the City of Abilene has achieved its
goals, Abilene residents were asked to give their perception of performance on a set of
seven goals presented to the researchers by city officials. Respondents were asked to
indicate their agreement with how well it is achieving them, using a 5-point Likert-style
scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement, to 5 indicating strong agreement with the
statements that describe the goals. These goals were worded in the survey as follows:
Goal 1: The City of Abilene practices effective governance.
Goal 2: The City of Abilene exercises sound financial discipline.
Goal 3: The City of Abilene enjoys a high quality of life.
Goal 4: The City of Abilene is well known for well-maintained and reliable
municipal infrastructure.
Goal 5: The City of Abilene consistently provides excellent service.
Goal 6: The City of Abilene encourages economic growth.
Goal 7: The City of Abilene actively fosters and seeks an engaged community.
Achievement of Individual City Goals
As described in Figure 3 and Table 9 below, the area of greatest success in goal
attainment is that of quality of life, with a mean score of 3.44 out of 5. Following closely
are the goals of community engagement (3.35), economic growth (3.30), and effective
governance (3.24). Lowest performance relates to goals dealing with municipal
infrastructure (2.59) and financial discipline (2.91).
While differences between online and paper surveys are not great, it should be
noted that the online respondents were consistently more critical than were those
completing paper surveys (Table 9).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 23 of 154
23
Figure 3. Achievement of Individual City Goals
Table 9. Goal Achievement
Category Full Online Paper
Effective governance 3.24 3.17 3.32
Financial discipline 2.91 2.80 3.01
Quality of life 3.44 3.30 3.58
Municipal infrastructure 2.59 2.46 2.73
Excellent service 3.07 2.93 3.21
Economic growth 3.30 3.15 3.45
Engaged community 3.35 3.24 3.46
Cumulatively, the mean score of the 7 criteria of goal achievement was 3.13 (a
rating only slightly positive on the 5-point scale). As noted earlier, online respondents
were less positive about progress toward goals than were those completing the paper
surveys (M=3.01 online vs. paper version mean of 3.25).
Breaking down the global satisfaction with the city’s progress on attaining the
goals, the following distinctions were found.
Analysis by Gender
As reflected in Figure 4 and Table 10 (below), while there is no meaningful
difference between males and females with regard to responses to these items, those
Effectivegovernance
Financialdiscipline
Quality oflife
Municipalinfrastructu
re
Excellentservice
Economicgrowth
Engagedcommunity
Online 3.17 2.80 3.30 2.46 2.93 3.15 3.24
Paper 3.32 3.01 3.58 2.73 3.21 3.45 3.46
Total 3.24 2.91 3.44 2.59 3.07 3.30 3.35
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Goal Acheivement of the City
Online Paper Total
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 24 of 154
24
responding “other” or “I prefer not to answer” gave consistently lower rankings than those
indicating gender.
Figure 4. Goal Achievement by Gender
Table 10. Goal Achievement by Gender
Category Full Online Paper
Female 3.16 3.06 3.26
Male 3.13 3.00 3.26
Other 2.76 2.50 3.03
I prefer not to answer 2.66 2.59 2.73
Analysis by Ethnicity
The data suggest that Asian, Native American and African American respondents
are more positive about goal attainment than are white, non-Hispanic and Hispanic
citizens (Figure 5 and Table 11). However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously
because of the underrepresentation of Hispanic and African American citizens in the
survey. It is possible that the low response rate of these two groups in particular could be
biased.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 25 of 154
25
Figure 5. Difference in Overall Goal by Ethnicity
Table 11. Goal Achievement by Ethnicity
Category Full Online Paper
White, NH 3.16 3.05 3.26
Hispanic-Any 3.11 2.95 3.27
African American, NH 3.43 3.29 3.57
Multi-race 3.08 2.91 3.25
Asian, NH 3.82 3.67 3.98
Native American, NH 3.45 3.67 3.22
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, NH 3.07 3.24 2.91
Prefer not to answer 2.97 2.68 3.26
Analysis by Age
As Figure 6 and Table 12 reflect below, there is strong, if not perfect, linear
relationship between age and appraisal of the city’s effectiveness in meeting its goals,
with the exception of persons in their 90s who responded. However, the overall
differences are not great, and could reflect other factors (e.g., a tendency of younger
respondents to be more critical, or to have a more limited historical perspective on the
city’s performance over years).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 26 of 154
26
Figure 6. Difference in Overall Goal by Age
Table 12. Goal Achievement by Age
Category Full Online Paper
20s 2.98 2.79 3.18
30s 3.02 2.84 3.20
40s 3.09 2.98 3.21
50s 3.07 3.00 3.15
60s 3.15 3.06 3.24
70s 3.24 3.16 3.32
80s 3.35 3.34 3.35
90 or older 3.13 2.79 3.47
Analysis by Time in City
Responses regarding goal achievement by length of time living in Abilene show
little difference, and no particular pattern, outside the observation that those who have
lived in the city from 1-2 years seem more positive about performance on goals than
other groups (Table 7 and Figure 13).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 27 of 154
27
Figure 7. Difference in Overall goal by Time in City
Table 13. Goal Achievement by Length of Time in City
Category Full Online Paper
Less than 1 year 3.06 2.88 3.24
1-2 years 3.29 3.14 3.44
3-5 years 3.10 2.99 3.21
6-10 years 3.07 2.93 3.22
11-15 years 3.16 3.02 3.29
16-25 years 3.12 3.01 3.24
More than 25 years 3.13 3.01 3.24
Analysis by Education Level
Agreement with the statements on city goals based on education level again
shows little variance, but does reflect a higher level of satisfaction by respondents with
less than a high school education (Figure 8 and Table 14).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 28 of 154
28
Figure 8. Overall Goal Achievement by Education Level
Table 14. Goal Achievement by Education Level
Category Full Online Paper
12th grade or less 3.41 3.37 3.44
High school graduate or GED 3.08 2.94 3.21
Some college 3.09 2.96 3.23
College graduate 3.12 3.02 3.23
Graduate degree 3.23 3.13 3.34
Analysis by Housing Type
While renters indicated a somewhat more positive perspective on the city’s
progress on goals (3.20 mean), there is little difference among persons who report stable
living arrangements (Figure 9 and Table 15). Curiously, however, those respondents
who reported having no permanent residence were the most positive about their
agreement with the city’s achievement of its goals (3.44). As in other analyses, this held
true regardless of the type of survey completed (electronic or paper).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 29 of 154
29
Figure 9. Difference in Overall Goal by Housing Type
Table 15. Goal Achievement by Housing Type
Category Full Online Paper
Other 2.98 2.67 3.29
Own 3.13 3.01 3.25
Rent 3.20 3.05 3.34
Occupied without payment 3.04 2.83 3.24
No permanent residence 3.44 3.21 3.67
Analysis by Household Income
Although respondents making less than $5,000 per year reported lower
perception of city performance on goals than other groups (mean score of 2.97), other
income groups were virtually uniformly consistent in rating city performance in this area
(Figure 10 and Table 16).
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 30 of 154
30
Figure 10. Difference in Overall Goal by Household Income
Table 16. Goal Achievement by Household Income
Category Full Online Paper
Less than $5,000 2.97 2.52 3.41
$5,000 - $19,999 3.17 2.99 3.35
$20,000 - $49,999 3.17 3.01 3.33
$50,000 - $99,999 3.15 3.05 3.25
$100,000 - $149,999 3.10 3.04 3.16
More than $150,000 3.17 3.04 3.30
Factors of the Overall Attitude to Goal Achievements
We as investigators are interested in what makes residents feel satisfied with the
City’s goal achievement. We have investigated the difference in the mean score
depending on each of the socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender) so far.
Although this gives some information, it could provide misleading information because
there are relationships between these characteristics. Therefore, a regression analysis
was conducted to describe which is the most influential factor when the relationships
were taken into account. In order to decide what variables to be included in the
regression analysis, a correlation analysis was conducted.
The correlation table (Table 17) informs what factors to be included in the
regression and also provides some information.
Older residents had a lower level of education and lived in Abilene longer.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 31 of 154
31
Residents with a higher education had higher house income and have lived in
Abilene a shorter period of time.
Table 17. Bivariate Correlations among Continuous Variables
1 2 3 4 5
GoalMean(1) 1.00
Age(2) .014 1.000
Education in year(3) .020 -.047** 1.000
LengthResidence (4) .018 .095*** -.083*** 1.00
HouseIncome (5) -.022 -.032 .404*** .022 1.00
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Table 18 shows the results of the regression analysis. Based on the examination
of the influence of each factor on DV and a linear relationship, the factors to be included
in the regression analysis were determined. Female and Hispanic were included based
on the investigation of the association with the related variables (gender and ethnicity)
with the attitude. Note that variables titled Length Residence and House Income were
excluded because these factors did not have a linear relationship with the attitude as
reflected in Table 17. The results (i.e., beta value) show significant factors of the attitude
at the following order:
More educated residents rated the overall goal achievement more positively
(t=2.422, p=.016).
Hispanic residents rated the overall goal achievement more negatively than the
other ethnicities (t=-2.079, p=.038).
Table 18. Factors of Attitude towards GoalMean (N=3061)
Factor b beta t p
Female (Y/N) .048 .032 1.739 .082
Hispanic (Y/N) -.074 -.038 -2.079 .038
Age .000 .023 1.254 .210
Education .033 .045 2.422 .016
HouseOwner (Y/N) -.011 -.005 -.262 .794
Note: LengthResidence and HouseIncome were excluded because it did not have a linear relationship.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 32 of 154
32
SATISFACTION AND MAJOR CITY FUNCTIONS
This study addresses 10 major functions, each broken down into the services
provided by each function. The functions selected refer to basic services that residents
expect the City government to provide in exchange for the taxes that they provide.
These function include:
Quality of Community Services
Public Safety
Library Services
Parks and Recreation
City Maintenance
Public Health
Solid Waste Service
Water and Sewer Service
Customer Service
City Communications
Gap Analysis Description
To analyze these 10 major functions, a gap analysis was incorporated. Residents
were asked to rate both the level of satisfaction and level of importance for each of these
specific issues in Abilene. Due to the number of questions included in the survey, a
benchmarking format was utilized to simultaneously ask residents for their assessment of
satisfaction and importance on a service; this reduced redundancy in the number of
questions and maintained the survey’s suitability for gap analysis.
A pilot study was completed in order to ensure that the survey was user friendly
for both young college populations and senior citizens. The following changes were
made based on the pilot study:
We changed it from a 7-scale to a 5 scale (for visually challenged people).
Respondents were asked to answer both sides of the survey by marking an X on the
number that represented their level of satisfaction and importance. The level of
satisfaction ranged from 1 to 5; 1 being Strongly Dissatisfied, 2 Somewhat Dissatisfied, 3
Neutral, 4 Somewhat Dissatisfied, and 5 Very Satisfied. The level of importance also
ranged from 1 to 5; 1 being Not important at all, 2 Little important, 3 Neutral, 4 Somewhat
important and 5 Very Important.
If rating did not apply for level of satisfaction due to lack of experience or
knowledge in the area of evaluation, they were asked to check NA.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 33 of 154
33
We made satisfaction and importance distinctive. Satisfaction was asked before
Importance (Satisfaction on the left side of the survey in blue and Importance was on the
right side in red).
For consistency we changed questions to statements from second person to first
person, i.e. I feel safe...).
Summary of Global Satisfaction and Expectations
Satisfaction
The service with which residents are least satisfied is City Maintenance, referring
to services such as overall appearance of neighborhoods, streets, and City Hall, to name
a few (Figure 11). The rating obtained was 3.10 out of 5.00. The second lowest rated
function in terms of satisfaction levels was Quality of Community Services as a whole,
meaning residents were not content with services such as water, streets, code
enforcement, etc. with an average rating of 3.46 out of 5.0.
Figure 11. Level of Satisfaction with Each Service Area
Importance
In addition to the sense of satisfaction of City Functions, we asked residents to
rate the level of importance they gave to each of these functions. The most important City
service provided at this time is the Water and Sewer services (Figure 12). The average
rating obtained was 4.75 out of 5.00, giving this function the highest rating above all
3.463.96 4.06
3.70 3.54 3.60 3.773.50 3.59
3.10
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Level of Satisfaction
Satisfaction
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 34 of 154
34
services in both importance and satisfaction. The second highest rated city function was
Public Safety, meaning Abilene residents consider that Public safety and Water and
Sewer services should take high priority among all other services provided by the City
government.
Figure 12. Level of Importance of Each Service Area
On the other hand, residents rated Library Services with an average of 3.70 and
Public Health Services with 3.88 as the two least important City functions. The second
refers to all related health services such City funded programs (i.e., WIC and MERCY
Healthcare) and routine services such as birth/death certificate requests, among others.
Gap Analysis
Gap analysis as used in this study involves a comparison between respondents’
ratings of performance on some area of concern and their expressed opinion on that
area’s importance. A “performance gap score” this is obtained by calculating the
difference between importance and satisfaction.
Using prior experience of one of the researchers, it was determined that emphasis
would be primarily placed on those areas where importance scores exceeded
performance scores by more than 0.75 points. For purposes of this analysis,
performance gaps between 0.75 and 0.99 are areas that the researchers suggest should
be targeted for improvement; these areas should take priority above City Functions with a
gap smaller than 0.75. City Functions with gaps larger than 1.00 are identified by the
researchers as areas of high (perhaps even critical) concern that should be at the top of
the agenda for future strategic plans.
4.37 4.52
3.704.08
4.383.88
4.754.17 4.42 4.37
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Level of Importance
Importance
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 35 of 154
35
Out of the 10 main City Functions that were included in the survey, 5 had gaps
higher than 0.75 (Figure 13). In order of largest to smallest gaps we have: City
maintenance with a 1.27, followed by Water and Sewer Services with 0.98, Quality of
Community Services 0.91, Solid Waste Service 0.84, and Customer Service 0.83.
Figure 13. Performance Gap between Level of Satisfaction and Level of
Importance of Each Service Area
Areas with the smallest gaps and therefore have the lowest levels of
dissatisfaction compared to resident expectations are Parks and Recreation Services
and Public Health Services with a 0.38 and 0.28 gap.
Something to take note of is the inverted gap found in Library services. These
results reflect a high level of satisfaction with a service that citizens do not give as much
importance to. With a Satisfaction level of 4.06 and an Importance Score of 3.70, library
services exceeds expectations by 0.36 and therefore would not appear to be an area of
focus in upcoming strategic planning.
Breakdown by Functions
The following sections present the gap analysis for each of the ten (10) functions
and their sub-functions included in the survey. These sections present a more in depth
analysis of the main areas discussed in the previous paragraphs.
Water andSewer
Services
PublicSafety
CustomerService
SolidWaste
Services
CityMaintenan
ce
Communityservices
CityCommunic
ations
Parks andRecreation
PublicHealth
LibraryServices
Importance 4.75 4.52 4.42 4.38 4.37 4.37 4.17 4.08 3.88 3.70
Satisfaction 3.77 3.96 3.59 3.54 3.10 3.46 3.50 3.70 3.60 4.06
Difference 0.98 0.56 0.83 0.85 1.28 0.92 0.67 0.39 0.27 -0.37
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Gap between Satisfaction and Importance
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 36 of 154
36
Quality of Community Services
Police
Fire
Planning & Development Services
Streets
Storm Water
Parks & Recreation
Code enforcement
Water Utilities
Zoo
Municipal Court
Although the overall gap for Quality of Community Services is not above 1.00
(0.92) it is still relatively high, indicating that we should take a closer look at the
subsections of this function to determine where the highest levels of dissatisfaction can
be found.
Streets, with a 1.82 out of 5 score, is the lowest scored subsection in the survey
(Figure 14). Compared to the level of importance streets have to residents (4.70 out of
5.00) we are able to see there is a large performance gap (2.89) in this area. As the
subsection with the largest gap, almost 3 times larger than the average (1.00) we
recommend this service be put at the top of the list of priorities for the City of Abilene
when it comes to Quality of Community Services. Drastic action is required for change to
occur in this area.
Figure 14. Gaps in Component Functions of Community Services
FireDept
Police StreetsWaterUtlities
PublicHealth
StormWater
Planning&
Development
Municipal Court
Parks &Recreati
on
CodeEnforce
mentZoo
Importance 4.93 4.87 4.70 4.62 4.33 4.33 4.20 4.12 4.07 4.01 3.90
Satisfaction 4.67 4.20 1.82 3.45 3.73 2.53 3.10 3.66 3.67 2.94 4.44
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Quality of Community Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 37 of 154
37
Although all services in this function were rated of high importance, the services
with the highest level of importance are the Fire Department and the Police Department
with mean scores of 4.93 and 4.87 out of 5.00, respectively. Services that are of least
importance for the residents of Abilene, but still considerably high, are the Zoo (mean of
3.90) and Code Enforcement (mean of 4.01).
The department with the highest level of Satisfaction and Importance is the Fire
Department, 4.67 in Satisfaction and 4.93 in Importance out of 5.00, with a minimal gap
of 0.36. Through these scores we find that residents highly value this service and
simultaneously are satisfied with the service provided. There is small room for
improvement but no drastic action would appear to be necessary for this area in
particular.
Another area of high satisfaction is the Abilene Zoo, ranking second highest in this
function with a 4.4 out of 5.00. However, it is important to take note of the fact that Zoo is
not rated highly in level of importance (3.90) resulting in an inverted gap that tells us that
satisfaction with zoo services, exceeds the expectations of the residents. Parenthetically,
this would suggest that the Zoo is a “hidden gem” that may not be fully appreciated for its
contribution to the city’s quality of life.
Additionally to the performance gap found in the quality of street services and zoo,
our findings show us that 3 additional services (5/10 services) have a gap greater than
1.00, and should be of significant concern in planning: Streets (2.89), Storm water (1.80),
Water Utilities (1.17), Planning & Development (1.09) and Code Enforcement (1.08).
Public Safety
Citizens were asked to respond to eight contexts in which safety is often a
concern:
At the City park closest to my home
In my neighborhood
At a school function
In Downtown after business hours
Safety during day time
Safety during night time
Local traffic law
While riding on CityLink, the City’s bus system
This section presents the level of safety residents experience in different parts of
the city throughout the day. The areas and times residents feel it is most important to
ensure public safety are in their neighborhoods (score of 4.84 out of 5.00) and during the
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 38 of 154
38
day and night time (both scored 4.72 out of 5.00) (Figure 15). In comparison we can see
that residents feel most safe during the daytime (4.48 out of 5.00) and at school functions
(4.23 out of 5.00).
Figure 15. Gaps in Safety Perception by Locales and Times
Residents felt that the City Bus System (3.89 out of 5.00) and Downtown after
Business Hours (4.34) are of lesser importance when it comes to safety, as compared to
the other contexts listed in the survey.
Although there are no services with a performance gap larger than 1.00, there are
3 areas between the 0.75 and 0.99 range: Safety during night time (0.99), downtown
after business hours (0.94), and local traffic safety (0.84).
Overall, there is a high sense of safety in Abilene with an average performance
gap under 0.75 (0.65), but the data suggest there is still room for increasing public safety
in several contexts within the city.
Library Services
Seven library functions were presented to citizens for them to evaluate:
Convenience of public Library service
Availability of information about library programs
Number of public access computers available
Quality of programs for children and young adults
Quality of the library’s media collection
Quality of library’s book collection
Quality of the Spanish language collection
Neighborhood
Nighttime
Day timeLocal
traffic lawSchoolfunction
City park
Downtown after
businesshours
City's bussystem
Importance 4.84 4.72 4.72 4.60 4.58 4.45 4.34 3.89
Satisfaction 4.18 3.73 4.48 3.76 4.23 3.88 3.41 3.28
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Public Safety Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 39 of 154
39
Library Services is the only major function in which all of its subservices resulted
in an inverted gap, meaning the level of satisfaction with these services exceeds the
resident’s expectations (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Gaps in Library Services
Since none of the components had issues, it is not suggested this be an area of
high priority for the City to focus on at this time.
Parks and Recreation
Eleven items related to city park operations were presented to citizens for their
evaluation. These included:
Number of City parks
Overall impression of the city parks
Maintenance of the city parks
Maintenance of park bathrooms
Hike and Bike trails
Number of outdoor athletic fields
Quality of outdoor athletic fields
Overall impression of Abilene Zoo
City special events and festivals
Overall quality of park amenities
Availability of information about City parks and recreation programs
Residents are overall satisfied with the parks and recreation services of the City of
Abilene, as demonstrated by their small global performance gap of 0.36 (Figure 17).
Looking more closely at the 11 individual items comprising this section, we see that
Convenience
Bookcollection
Programsfor
children/youngadults
Information about
programs
Mediacollection
# ofcomputer
s
Spanishlanguagecollection
Importance 3.95 3.94 3.91 3.78 3.61 3.47 3.11
Satisfaction 4.38 4.08 3.98 4.07 3.90 3.86 3.44
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Library Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 40 of 154
40
Abilenians are mostly satisfied with the Zoo services (4.47 out of 5) and the number of
parks in Abilene (4.03 out of 5).
Figure 17. Gaps in Parks and Recreation Services
There are two services that residents expressed most dissatisfaction with: Park
bathrooms, with a rating of 2.90 out of 5, and Hike and Bike trails with a 2.95 mean score.
These two are also the only two services with a performance gap higher than 0.75:
Bathrooms with a 1.49 performance gap and Hike and Bike trails with a 0.91. These
results could guide the City of Abilene in the improvement of these two areas rather than
focusing on the numbers of parks or outdoor fields, which were rated lowest in level of
importance of these 11 items by respondents.
City Maintenance
Eight aspects of city maintenance were identified and included in the survey.
These included:
Overall appearance of your neighborhood
Overall appearance of neighborhoods in general
Street Maintenance
Maintenance and preservation of downtown
Street lighting
Street sweeping services
Maintenance of streets in my neighborhood (this one is repeated twice in the
electronic version)
Appearance and maintenance of City Hall
Maintenance
Bathrooms
ZooOverallimpress
ion
Amenities
Specialevents
Number
Infoaboutprogra
ms
Hikeandbiketrails
Qualityof
outdoorfields
# ofoutdoorfields
Importance 4.38 4.38 4.32 4.21 4.13 4.08 4.00 3.95 3.86 3.83 3.72
Satisfaction 3.73 2.90 4.47 3.74 3.58 3.78 4.03 3.39 2.95 3.52 3.60
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Parks and Recreation Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 41 of 154
41
It is in this section where we see the largest gaps out of all the City functions. All of
the City maintenance services included in the survey have a gap between satisfaction
and importance that is higher than 0.75 with the exception of Downtown (0.68) and City
Hall Maintenance (0.04) (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Gaps in Maintenance Services
The City Maintenance aspect that residents are most satisfied with is the
appearance and maintenance of City Hall (3.76 out of 5.00) and overall appearance of
respondents’ immediate neighborhoods (3.67 out of 5.00). Citizens report high levels of
dissatisfaction with general street maintenance (mean satisfaction score of 1.89 out of
5.00) and neighborhood street maintenance (mean of 2.67 out of 5.00).
The services that are considered the most important were street maintenance with
a 4.75 out of 5.00 and overall of their neighborhood appearance with a 4.63 out of 5.00.
City Hall appearance and maintenance (mean of 3.79) and street sweeping (3.98) were
rated least important of the eight items in this list of city maintenance priorities, although
it should be noted that both are rated as “somewhat important.”
Streets and Streets Neighborhoods have the biggest gap with 2.86 and 1.95
respectively. As mentioned earlier in this report, street maintenance in general and in
residential areas is the number one topic of concern for Abilene residents.
Public Health Services
Citizens were asked to rank the importance of, and their satisfaction with, seven
components of the city’s public health programs:
Streets
Appearance--My
Neighborhood
Streets-Neighborho
od
StreetLighting
OverallNeighborho
odAppearance
DowntownStreet
SweepingCity Hall
Importance 4.72 4.63 4.62 4.54 4.51 4.16 3.98 3.79
Satisfaction 1.89 3.67 2.67 3.35 3.17 3.49 2.88 3.76
1
2
3
4
5
Maintenance Services
Importance Satisfaction
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 42 of 154
42
Availability of information regarding Public Health Programs
WIC Program Services
Immunization Clinic Services
Environmental Health Services/Inspections
MERCY Healthcare Center Services
Laboratory Services
Birth/Death Certificate Services
When it comes to public health services, residents’ answers were consistently
between neutral and somewhat positive (Figure 19). Their highest levels of satisfaction
are with Birth and Death Certificate Services (3.77 out of 5.00) and Immunization Clinic
(3.68), services that the general population utilizes. However, when it comes to programs
that are mostly targeted to low income populations, the respondents did not give much
importance to them. Such is the case of the WIC Program and MERCY Healthcare
Center, which scored the lowest in importance, 3.66 and 3.67 respectively.
Figure 19. Gaps in Public Health Services
Citizens are less satisfied with the information provided on the public health
program (3.36 out of 5.00) and Environmental Health Services/Inspections (3.42 out of
5.00).
Something important to notice is that none of the services have a performance
gap higher than 0.75, this indicates that the level of expectations of the residents is not
far from the current level of satisfaction on these services. Unfortunately, low income
populations and other vulnerable groups (young populations, African Americans,
Hispanics and low income whites) are underrepresented in the pool of survey
Info-PublicHealth
Programs
Birth/DeathCertificate
ImmunizationClinic
Environmental
Health/Inspections
LaboratoryMERCY
HealthcareCenter
WICProgram
Importance 4.05 3.96 3.96 3.95 3.77 3.67 3.66
Satisfaction 3.36 3.77 3.68 3.42 3.52 3.38 3.43
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Public Health Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 43 of 154
43
respondents, meaning that the people that responded to this survey would most likely be
those less in need of these programs, which would explain the relative level of neutrality
in satisfaction and importance of these programs.
A caveat that should be noted regarding the public health section of the survey is
the underrepresentation of low income and racial and ethnic minorities in the study.
These populations tend to make much greater use of public health services than do
higher income residents, and their comparative absence from the study may contribute to
a bias in responses to this section.
Solid Waste Services
Five solid waste services were presented to respondents for their assessment of
satisfaction and importance:
Residential trash collection services
Commercial solid waste collection services
Brush and bulky removal services
Overall effectiveness of special cleanups
Cost of solid waste service
Overall, residents give relatively high importance to all waste services, but are less
satisfied with three services in this function. Brush and bulky material removal services
shows a gap of 1.39, followed by the cost of solid waste services with a 1.13 gap, and the
overall effectiveness of special cleanups revealing a 0.82 gap (Figure 20). This suggests
that these three services receive priority consideration for improvements over the other
waste services provided by the City in order to increase resident satisfaction.
Figure 20. Gaps in Solid Waste Services
Trashcollection
Brush/bulkyremovalservices
Cost-solidservice
Specialcleanups
Commercialsolid
collection
Importance 4.78 4.42 4.32 4.21 4.19
Satisfaction 4.13 3.03 3.19 3.39 3.81
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Solid Waste Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 44 of 154
44
Water and Sewer Services
Six aspects of water and sewer services were included in the survey:
Taste of the water
Clarity of tap water in my home
Water pressure in my home
Sewer service
Reliability of my water and sewer services
Affordability of my water and sewer services
Residents are satisfied with the reliability of the water (4.27 out of 5.00), a service
they also consider highly important (4.81 out of 5.00) (Figure 21).
Figure 21. Gaps in Water Services
Affordability of the water has the largest gap with a 1.56 performance gap;
however, taste (1.27) and clarity of water (1.13) also have a higher than 1.00 gap, and
water pressure has a 0.75 gap.
Customer Service
The next section in this part of the survey focused on ten items associated with
customer service:
Directed to the department or person who could resolve my problem on the
first attempt
Asked adequate questions to determine the nature of the problem
The correct employee returned my call within a reasonable time
The problem was adequately dealt with by the employee responding
Follow up from the City to ensure my concerns were addressed
The employee treated me with dignity, courtesy and respect
The employee gave me a straight answer
ReliabilityClarity oftapwater
Taste AffordabilitySewerservice
Waterpressure
Importance 4.81 4.78 4.75 4.74 4.74 4.70
Satisfaction 4.27 3.64 3.48 3.18 4.10 3.95
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Water Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 45 of 154
45
The people I talked to showed pride and concern for quality of their work
The primary employee I worked with represented the City in a positive manner
through his or her actions.
The City's Public Transportation Service (buses) run during a convenient time
of the day for me
Customer service has an average of 3.52 out of 5.00 in terms of the level of
satisfaction with the dignity, courtesy and respect with which an employee treated them
(3.89), followed by the positive manner in which an employee treated them (3.73).
Residents felt least satisfied with the City’s bus services and the time they ran throughout
the day (3.26) (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Gaps in Customer Service Components
On importance, customer service has an average of 4.42 out of 5.00 with buses
service times being the lowest again (3.76).
There is a performance gap larger than 1.00 on three of the ten areas of customer
service; at the same time, three areas (being treated with dignity, courtesy and respect
by employees, positive manner of employees, and bus service times) have gaps of less
than 0.75. It is important to keep in mind the middle to high economic status of the
majority of respondents and how this might affect their need and use of bus services.
Nonetheless, these results reflect a globally lower satisfaction rate, the City needs to
improve and give general emphasis to these services in order to increase resident
satisfaction.
Straightanswer
Dignity,courtesy
, andrespect
Directed-right
person
Adequately dealt
Adequate
questions
Response time
Positivemanner
Qualityof theirwork
Followup
Bus atconvenient time
Importance 4.59 4.57 4.52 4.51 4.50 4.49 4.46 4.44 4.35 3.76
Satisfaction 3.65 3.89 3.54 3.51 3.60 3.41 3.73 3.60 3.05 3.26
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Customer Service
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 46 of 154
46
City Communications
The final part of this section of the survey focused on city communications, and
asked residents to report their levels of satisfaction and importance as they relate to eight
areas, expressed in the following language:
The City’s efforts to keep you informed about City government
Frequency of information provided
I receive my information on the City from city employees
I receive my information on the City from City Council Members
City Website
Newspaper coverage on City issues
Television coverage on City issues
Information found on my utility bill or utility bill inserts
The City’s efforts to keep citizens informed (0.96), the frequency of information
provided (0.84), and the information on the City from City Council Members (0.96) all
have gaps larger than 0.75. However, residents are mostly satisfied with City website
(3.56 out of 5.00), newspaper (3.44 out of 5.00), television coverage (3.70 out of 5.00),
and billing inserts (3.63 of 5.00) (Figure 23). Expressed differently, residents appear
more satisfied with what the City puts out in different forms of media, but desire an
increase in direct communication from City Council members and City leaders.
Figure 23. Gaps in Communications
Informedabout City
Televisioncoverage
Citywebsite
Frequencyof
information
Info on mybill or
inserts
Info fromCouncil
Members
Info fromcity
employees
Newspaper coverage
Importance 4.40 4.24 4.21 4.19 4.15 4.14 4.07 3.95
Satisfaction 3.44 3.70 3.56 3.36 3.63 3.18 3.34 3.44
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
City Communication Efforts
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 47 of 154
47
SUPPORT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The fourth section of the survey called for respondents to provide their levels of
support for future development in the City. Three broad areas--street improvements,
downtown development, and priorities for bond elections to underwrite improvements all
of which are associated with improvement in recreation facilities. For each area, a series
of priority areas were identified, with respondents ranking their levels of support on a
Likert-style scale ranging from 1 (strongly oppose) to 5 (strongly support). For the
following issues about future development, we divided the data into two groups with a
cut-off point of 65 of age in order to see if there is a difference between these groups.
Each figure presents the value for the full sample.
Support for Street Investments
Five areas of improvements were identified regarding street repairs:
Pothole repair and general maintenance
Handicap parking
Street Lighting
Traffic light sequencing
Clearing brush and overhanging tree limbs from public right of way and
alleyways
Support for Street Investments by Ages
As Figure 24 (below) indicates, residents who responded to this question
expressed overwhelming support for increased spending on pothole repair and general
street maintenance (4.73 out of 5 mean score). Three of the areas (street lighting, traffic
light sequencing, and right of way maintenance) were reported as being somewhat
important. Handicap parking did not reflect strong support, but it is important to note that
responses to this need fall above the neutral range (3.43).
Citizens over age 65 do not report appreciably different attitudes toward any of the
five street priorities, although they do report more support for improved handicap parking
than residents age 65 or younger.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 48 of 154
48
Figure 24. Support for Street Investments by Generations
Breaking down the responses by age more sharply on the five areas of street
repair and maintenance was more revealing, however. In all five areas there was a clear
linear relationship based on age, with support for increased spending increasing with
age. This suggests that, although there is no significant difference between those 65 and
younger and those over 65, younger citizens are less supportive of increased spending
than older Abilenians, across these five areas related to streets (see Figure 25 below).
This difference is most marked with regard to improving handicap parking.
PotholeRepair
HandicapParking
StreetLighting
TrafficSequencing
ClearingRight of Way
Age<65 4.72 3.23 4.01 3.98 4.11
Age>=65 4.76 3.73 4.19 4.25 4.31
Full 4.73 3.43 4.09 4.09 4.19
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Support for Street Investments by Generations
Age<65 Age>=65 Full
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 49 of 154
49
Figure 25. Support for Street Investments by Age Categories
Support for Street Investments by Gender
No differences by gender were noted on these issues related to street
maintenance (Figure 26, below).
Pothole Repair Handicap Parking Street LightingTraffic
SequencingClearing Right of
Way
20s 4.73 2.92 3.83 3.84 3.93
30s 4.69 2.9 3.93 3.8 3.89
40s 4.72 3.3 3.99 3.96 4.12
50s 4.74 3.32 4.02 4 4.15
60s 4.72 3.46 4.12 4.14 4.26
70s 4.78 3.78 4.23 4.32 4.33
80s 4.76 3.88 4.24 4.27 4.36
90s 4.66 3.97 4.26 4.24 4.41
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Street Investments by Age
20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 50 of 154
50
Figure 26. Support for Street Investments by Gender
Support for Street Investments by Median Income Breakdown
As Figure 27 shows (below), one area demonstrates greater difference of opinion
with regard to increased spending on street development than the others. Residents
whose incomes are below the Abilene median are more likely to favor increased
spending on handicap parking than wealthier Abilenians. No other meaningful
differences by income are noted.
Figure 27. Support for Street Initiatives by Median Income Breakdown
Pothole repair andgeneral maintenance
Handicap parking Street lightingTraffic lightsequencing
Clearing brush andoverhanging tree
limbs
Median/Below 4.69 3.77 4.24 4.17 4.33
Above Median 4.75 3.25 4 4.03 4.12
Total 4.73 3.43 4.09 4.09 4.19
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Street Initiatives by Mediane Income Breakdown
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 51 of 154
51
Support for Street Investments by Income Level
As with age, as described above, a more precise analysis by income categories
yields statistically significant but not meaningful differences by income. More precisely,
with the exception of highest and lowest income levels (i.e., those over $100,000 per
year or under $5,000 per year), support for all five categories of street improvement
tends to be stronger (Figure 28). The caveat in this finding is that all areas except
improving handicap parking are characterized by very strong levels of support,
regardless of income.
Figure 28. Support for Street Investments by Income Level
Support for Street Investments by Ethnicity
With regard to race and ethnicity, several interesting trends emerged. As Figure
29 indicates, there are some curious and statistically significant, if not substantively
different, perspectives with regard to street repair by ethnicity. Particularly, in the cases
of handicap parking, street lighting, traffic sequencing and clearing of right of ways,
predominantly non-white respondents (Hispanics and African Americans) tend to express
stronger support for investment in these issues than do whites and American
Indian/Alaska native citizens.
Pothole Repair Handicap Parking Street LightingTraffic
SequencingClearing Right of
Way
Less than $5k 4.24 4.05 4.19 3.86 3.81
$5-19,999 4.64 4.16 4.31 4.31 4.39
$20-49,999 4.72 3.67 4.23 4.15 4.33
$50-99,999 4.78 3.4 4.11 4.09 4.24
$100-149,999 4.69 3.13 3.85 3.94 3.98
$150k/Above 4.76 3.02 3.94 4.02 4
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Street Investments by Income Level
Less than $5k $5-19,999 $20-49,999 $50-99,999 $100-149,999 $150k/Above
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 52 of 154
52
Figure29. Support for Street Investments by Ethnicity
Support for Street Investments by Time of City
While there are statistically significant differences by length of time in the city and
support of street repairs in all areas but pothole repair and general maintenance, these
differences are not meaningful for interpretation of the data. There is general
consistency across the spectrum of time in Abilene in supporting increased investment in
this priority, with the exception of handicap parking, where support is more lukewarm
(Figure 30).
Pothole RepairHandicapParking
Street LightingTraffic
SequencingClearing Right of
Way
White 4.74 3.41 4.05 4.07 4.16
Hispanic 4.71 3.59 4.32 4.22 4.39
African Am. 4.65 4.07 4.55 4.49 4.51
2 or More Races 4.76 3.69 4.34 4.2 4.39
Asian 4.83 3.94 4.39 4.56 4.67
Native Am. 4.63 2.81 3.94 3.81 3.88
Pacific Is. 5 3.33 4.67 4.67 4.67
No Answer 4.71 3.24 4.05 3.99 4.12
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Street Investment by Ethnicity
White Hispanic African Am. 2 or More Races Asian Native Am. Pacific Is. No Answer
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 53 of 154
53
Figure 30. Support for Street Investments by Time in City
Support for Street Investments by Housing Type
With the exception of the area of pothole repair and street maintenance, there are
significant and potentially meaningful differences of opinions about future spending
based on type of housing (Figure 31). Most striking is the difference of opinion between
those identifying as “home owners” or “other,” and those identifying as renters, with
regard to improvements in handicap parking and street lighting improvements. Also,
persons without permanent residence express the greatest support for projects than
other groups, except with regard to pothole repair and general maintenance of streets.
Pothole Repair Handicap Parking Street LightingTraffic
SequencingClearing Right of
Way
<1 Year 4.72 3.58 4.28 4.09 4.28
1-2 Years 4.66 3.41 4.14 4 4.04
3-5 Years 4.76 3.16 4.01 3.98 3.95
6-10 Years 4.71 3.31 3.95 3.89 4.07
11-15 Years 4.74 3.41 4.12 4.12 4.15
15-25 Years 4.74 3.29 4.02 4.02 4.14
>25 Years 4.73 3.52 4.13 4.15 4.27
1
2
3
4
5
Suport for Street Investments by Time in City
<1 Year 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 15-25 Years >25 Years
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 54 of 154
54
Figure 31. Support for Street Investments by Housing Type
Support for Street Investments by Education Level
With the exception of pothole repairs, there is significant difference in expressed
support for the projects included in the survey regarding priorities for street repairs
(Figure 32). Probably the most notable feature is the inverse relationship of education
levels to support for these projects; those with only high school or less educational
attainment expressed significantly higher levels of support for projects other than pothole
repair/general street maintenance than did those with graduate degrees. In this case
(and particularly with regard to the area of handicap parking), the differences may reflect
meaningful, as well as significant, differences of opinion.
Pothole Repair Handicap Parking Street LightingTraffic
SequencingClearing Right of
Way
Own 4.73 3.4 4.06 4.08 4.18
Rent 4.74 3.73 4.39 4.18 4.33
No Payment 4.75 3.88 4.25 4.17 4.13
No Perm. Res. 4.8 3.8 4.8 4.4 4.4
Other 4.7 3.33 3.85 3.96 4.04
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Street Investments by Housing Type
Own Rent No Payment No Perm. Res. Other
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 55 of 154
55
Figure 32. Support for Street Investments by Education Level
Downtown Development
Five spending priorities for future development of the downtown area were
included in the study:
Open space for special event venues
Improve landscaping on city streets
Encourage its historic atmosphere
Encourage multiple types of housing opportunities
Require building facades to meet certain architectural standards that contribute
to, and enhance Abilene's existing historic flavor
Downtown Development by Generations
As Figure 33, below, shows, none of the five areas reflect strong support for
increased spending, although two (development of open spaces for public events and
enhancing the downtown area’s historic atmosphere) would appear to have lukewarm
support. No significant difference was found between respondents 65 and under and
those over 65 in this analysis.
Pothole Repair Handicap Parking Street LightingTraffic
SequencingClearing Right of
Way
<HS 4.63 4.37 4.49 4.48 4.49
HS/GED 4.76 3.89 4.39 4.29 4.41
Post-Secondary 4.75 3.62 4.2 4.14 4.34
College Degree 4.71 3.18 3.94 3.99 4.05
Grad Degree 4.75 3.19 3.95 4.01 4.06
No Answer 4.65 3.51 4.21 4.11 4.23
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Street Investments by Education Level
<HS HS/GED Post-Secondary College Degree Grad Degree No Answer
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 56 of 154
56
Figure 33. Downtown Development by Generations
Downtown Development by Age Categories
As noted above with regard to streets, a more specific breakdown of attitudes
toward downtown development reveals some additional statistically significant, and in
this case meaningful differences by narrower age groups (Figure 34). Specifically, with
regard to creation of open spaces and improvement of street landscaping, younger
residents express more willingness to develop these aspects of the downtown than those
80 years of age and old.
3.743.52
3.803.60 3.45
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Open Spaces StreetLandscaping
HistoricAtmosphere
Multiple HousingTypes
ArchitecturalStandards
Downtown Development by Generations
Age<65 Age>=65 Full
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 57 of 154
57
Figure 34. Support for Downtown Improvement by Age Categories
Downtown Development by Median Income Breakdown
Little difference is noted when examining attitudes toward downtown development
by income as measured by whether respondents were above or below the median for the
city. While respondents who reported incomes below the median were somewhat more
inclined to support the development of diverse housing options for the downtown area,
that difference was not meaningful (Figure 35).
Open Spaces Street LandscapingHistoric
AtmosphereMultiple Housing
TypesArchitectural
Standards
20s 3.93 3.8 3.86 3.58 3.47
30s 3.81 3.62 3.75 3.6 3.47
40s 3.84 3.65 3.84 3.64 3.58
50s 3.84 3.54 3.84 3.62 3.39
60s 3.81 3.55 3.87 3.6 3.5
70s 3.67 3.49 3.79 3.65 3.43
80s 3.39 3.28 3.62 3.46 3.39
90s 3.26 3.26 3.59 3.55 3.38
1
2
3
4
5
Downtown Development Suport by Age
20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 58 of 154
58
Figure 35. Support for Downtown Development, Median Income Breakdown
Downtown Development by Income Level
While no significance is found between those above and below median income for
the city, the responses reveal three issues where more specificity about income is
important (Figure 36). Specifically, low-income residents report little enthusiasm for
street landscaping compared to other income groups. Also, low and moderate-income
groups are more supportive of diverse housing options in the downtown district than
higher income citizens. Finally, citizens who earn between $5,000 and $50,000 and
those earning more than $150,000 express greater support for architectural standards for
downtown development.
Open SpaceStreet
LandscapingHistoric
DevelopmentMulti-Type
HousingArchitectural Stds.
Below Median 3.8 3.52 3.87 3.84 3.53
Above Median 3.79 3.61 3.82 3.57 3.48
All 3.74 3.52 3.8 3.6 3.45
1
2
3
4
5
Downtown Development by Median Income Breakdown
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 59 of 154
59
Figure 36. Support for Downtown Development by Income Level
Downtown Development by Ethnicity
When examining attitudes toward downtown development by ethnicity, all areas
reveal statistically significant differences in attitudes, with Asians, African American and
Hispanic residents expressing more support for these prospective projects than other
ethnic groups, while white and multi-racial residents’ responses tended to fall between
the most extreme scores for other groups (Figure 37).
Open SpaceStreet
LandscapingHistoric
AtmosphereMultiple Housing
TypesArchitectural
Stds.
<$5k 3.85 3.19 3.67 3.76 3.33
$5-19,999 3.76 3.62 3.91 3.99 3.71
$20-49,999 3.81 3.5 3.86 3.81 3.5
$50-99,999 3.77 3.55 3.82 3.59 3.44
$100-149,999 3.79 3.58 3.78 3.52 3.44
More than $150k 3.87 3.83 3.88 3.57 3.65
1
2
3
4
5
Downtown Improvement by Income Level
<$5k $5-19,999 $20-49,999 $50-99,999 $100-149,999 More than $150k
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 60 of 154
60
Figure 37. Support for Downtown Development by Ethnicity
Downtown Development by Time in City
There is a clear trend for newer citizens of Abilene to show more support for all but
one of the five priorities presented in the survey (the exception being that of development
of multiple housing types in the area, Figure 38. There is also a suggestion that support
for these priorities declines by length of residence in the city. The downtown would
appear to be more of priority for citizens who have lived in Abilene for less than three
years.
Open SpaceStreet
LandscapingHistoric
AtmosphereMultiple Housing
TypesArchitectural
Standards
White 3.75 3.53 3.84 3.59 3.49
Hispanic 3.96 3.8 3.87 3.85 3.66
African American 4.2 4.15 4.04 4.36 3.87
2 or More Races 3.89 3.56 3.7 3.63 3.3
Asian 4.33 4.06 4.39 4.39 3.94
American Indian 3.06 2.69 3 3 2.88
Pacific Islander 3 4 3.33 3 3.33
No Answer 3.37 3.09 3.39 3.28 2.91
1
2
3
4
5
Downtown Development Support by Ethnicity
White Hispanic African American 2 or More Races
Asian American Indian Pacific Islander No Answer
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 61 of 154
61
Figure 38. Support for Downtown Development by Time in City
Downtown Development by Type of Housing
Differences in attitudes toward downtown improvements are striking when
examined by home ownership types (Figure 39). Differences (statistically significant) are
primarily between renters and those answering “other,” with homeowners also reporting
substantially less support than other groups for these types of projects.
Open SpaceStreet
LandscapingHistoric
AtmosphereMultiple Housing
TypesArchitectural
Standards
<1 Year 3.93 4.02 4.3 3.7 3.95
1-2 Years 4.02 4.02 4.13 3.86 3.94
3-5 Years 3.78 3.72 3.89 3.7 3.57
6-10 Years 3.69 3.56 3.77 3.6 3.51
11-15 Years 3.73 3.6 3.84 3.69 3.46
15-25 Years 3.77 3.46 3.75 3.59 3.44
>25 Years 3.72 3.46 3.77 3.56 3.39
1
2
3
4
5
Downtown Development Support by Time In City
<1 Year 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 15-25 Years >25 Years
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 62 of 154
62
Figure39. Support for Downtown Development by Housing Type
Downtown Development by Education Level
Education level is significantly associated with attitudes toward all five downtown
development projects included in the survey. One of the more notable observations is
that those who refused to answer this question were the least supportive of all projects
listed (Figure 40). Notably, and unlike with regard to streets, lowest educated and
highest educated respondents closely paralleled one another except with regard to
support for development of diverse housing options and architectural standards for
facades in the downtown area. The greatest areas of diversity of opinion regarding the
five items comprising this section are around development of open space and imposition
of architectural facade standards for downtown re-development.
Open SpaceStreet
LandscapingHistoric
AtmosphereMultiple
Housing TypesArchitectural
Standards
Own 3.72 3.5 3.78 3.56 3.42
Rent 4 3.87 4.06 4.07 3.79
No Payment 3.71 3.42 3.67 3.29 3.33
No Perm. Res. 4.6 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.4
Other 3 2.59 2.67 3.04 2.44
1
2
3
4
5
Housing Type and Support for Downtown Development
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 63 of 154
63
Figure 40. Support for Downtown Development by Education Level
Bond Election Priorities
The third set of items for future development presented four potential new projects
that have been identified by community members as being desirable, but needing public
funding that would most likely increase property taxes. Those projects are:
For a new lighted sports complex with fields for softball, baseball, soccer and
football, even if it required a tax increase.
For hike and bike trails in addition to the Cedar Creek Trail, even if it required a
tax increase.
For an expansion to the Adventure Cove aquatic park, even if it required a tax i
ncrease
For a Modern Recreation Center (New facility that would serve the entire City
with indoor courts, fitness facilities, and meeting/classroom space)
Support for Bond Initiatives by Generations
As Figure 41 (below) suggests, none of the four possible projects generated mean
scores above “neutral” levels of support by citizens; one (a tax supported lighted sport
complex) reflects a mean score approaching opposition (2.66). With regard to age
differences, outside of unanimity of lack of support for the sport complex, residents 65
years of age or younger demonstrate stronger support for such projects, with creation of
Open SpaceStreet
LandscapingHistoric
AtmosphereMultiple Housing
TypesArchitectural
Standards
<HS 3.91 3.86 4.04 4.03 4.01
HS/GED 3.82 3.5 3.87 3.81 3.58
Post-Secondary 3.78 3.45 3.79 3.6 3.43
College Degree 3.7 3.5 3.73 3.49 3.38
Grad Degree 3.75 3.7 3.9 3.62 3.52
No Answer 3.45 3.19 3.57 3.45 3.12
1
2
3
4
5
Downtown Development Support by Education Level
<HS HS/GED Post-Secondary College Degree Grad Degree No Answer
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 64 of 154
64
a new recreation center and the development of bike and hiking trails along Cedar Creek
reflecting obvious discrepancies in the level of support by age. This difference may be
attributable to younger residents and their families seeing more value in these projects
than older residents.
Figure 41. Support for Bond Initiatives by Generations
Support for Bond Initiatives by Age Categories
Like above analyses, a more refined look at support for these projects reveals
some statistically significant, if not necessarily meaningful, differences by generations
(Figure 42). The level of support is generally linear, with support declining as
respondents’ age. The age differential is most marked on the issue of the biking and
hiking trails in Cedar Creek and the Recreation Center, although, as noted, the
differences exist for all four bond options.
2.662.88 2.74
3.01
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Sport Complex Hike/Bike Trails Adventure CoveExpansion
Rec Center
Support for Bond Options by Generations
Age<65 Age>=65 Full
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 65 of 154
65
Figure 42. Support for Bond Initiatives by Age Categories
Support for Bond Initiatives by Ethnicity
Analysis of support for the four bond projects by ethnicity reveals statistically
significant differences among ethnic and racial groups in the city, with white and
American Indian residents consistently expressing less support than most other groups
(Figure 43).
Sport Complex Hike/Bike TrailsAdventur Cove
ExpansionRec Center
20s 2.6 3.42 2.87 3.69
30s 2.69 3.21 2.98 3.38
40s 2.88 3.19 3.06 3.27
50s 2.66 3.03 2.86 3.08
60s 2.65 2.87 2.72 3
70s 2.67 2.57 2.54 2.74
80s 2.49 2.44 2.37 2.56
90s 2.33 2.38 2.26 2.31
Column1
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Bond Intiatives by Age Categories
20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s Column1
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 66 of 154
66
Figure 43. Support for Bond Initiatives by Ethnicity
Support for Bond Initiatives by Time in City
As Figure 44 suggests visually, there are statistically significant and probably
meaningful differences in the levels of support for the four options for bond initiatives that
were included in the survey based on time of residence. Notably, while there is a near
linear negative relationship between time in Abilene and support for options, long-term
residents break with that tendency somewhat with regard to support for the sport
complex and for a recreation center; however, it must be noted that longest term
residents’ mean scores remain for these two projects remain below several other (more
supportive) groups.
Sports Complex Hike/Bike Trails Adv. Cove Expansion Rec Center
White 2.66 2.91 2.73 2.99
Hispanic 2.99 3 3.05 3.38
African American 3.2 3.16 3.67 3.87
2 or More Races 2.87 2.94 2.84 3.14
Asian 3.22 3.28 3.72 3.78
American Indian 2.63 2.63 2.25 2.38
Pacific Islander 2.67 3 3.67 3
No Answer 2.09 2.39 2.23 2.54
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Bond Initiatives by Ethnicity
White Hispanic African American 2 or More Races
Asian American Indian Pacific Islander No Answer
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 67 of 154
67
Figure 44. Support for Bond Initiative by Time in City
Support for Bond Initiatives by Housing Type
There are marked differences of expressed levels of support for all the bond
initiatives proposed in the survey (Figure 45). Most striking is the difference between
homeowners and those answering “other,” and renters (the difference between home
owners or “other” and those reporting no permanent residence reveals the largest
differential, but the number with no permanent domicile is substantially lower).
Sport Complex Hike/Bike Trails Adv. Cove Expansion Recreation Center
<1 Year 2.91 3.26 2.84 3.23
1-2 Years 2.74 3.22 3.15 3.34
3-5 Years 2.59 3.13 2.71 3.19
6-10 Years 2.52 3.06 2.72 3.06
11-15 Years 2.62 2.96 2.73 3.07
15-25 Years 2.52 2.89 2.69 2.92
>25 Years 2.71 2.78 2.73 2.96
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Bond Initiatives by Time in City
<1 Year 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 15-25 Years >25 Years
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 68 of 154
68
Figure 45. Support for Bond Initiatives by Housing Type
Support for Bond Initiatives by Education Level
With the exception of the proposed sport complex, there are statistically significant
differences with regard support for the identified possible bond initiatives (Figure 46).
However, these should be interpreted with great caution, as the notable outlier (with
obviously negative inclinations) was the group of respondents who refused to report their
educational level. In contrast to questions about street repairs and downtown
development, there is a consistency of opinion between those with high school or less
education and those with graduate degrees.
Sport Complex Hike/Bike Trails Adv. Cove Expansion Recreation Center
Own 2.62 2.84 2.69 2.95
Rent 3.01 3.29 3.24 3.54
No Payment 2.5 3 2.75 3.13
No Perm. Res. 3.8 3.6 4 4
Other 2.19 2.41 2.48 2.33
1
2
3
4
5
Bond Project Support by Housing Type
Own Rent No Payment No Perm. Res. Other
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 69 of 154
69
Figure 46. Support for Bond Initiatives by Education Level
Sport Complex Hike/Bike Trails Adv. Cove Expansion Recreation Center
<HS 2.88 2.89 3.05 3.34
HS/GED 2.7 2.72 2.88 2.94
Post-Secondary 2.64 2.74 2.73 3
College Degree 2.65 2.96 2.68 3.03
Grad Degree 2.68 3.12 2.78 3.06
No Answer 2.34 2.35 2.31 2.6
1
2
3
4
5
Support for Bond Projects by Education Level
<HS HS/GED Post-Secondary College Degree Grad Degree No Answer
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 70 of 154
70
QUALITATIVE RESPONSES
In addition to the closed-ended questions on goal achievements, sense of
satisfaction-importance of City Functions, and support of future development, residents
were asked to respond to two broadly worded open ended questions. The first question
was what they would say is the most important issue Abilene is currently facing. The
second asked for respondents to identify up to three facilities or amenities that positively
contribute to enhancing quality of life in Abilene.
In order to provide in depth analysis of these qualitative responses we utilized a
highly regarded qualitative research tool called "NVivo" to analyze responses. Nvivo
searches open-ended responses to find most frequently occurring concepts or themes, a
strategy consistent with the intent of the two questions included in the survey. The
researchers evaluated 3,038 responses to the first question and 2,498 responses to the
second question to determine the most common themes.
Emergent Themes
As noted above, the first open-ended question dealt with perceptions of critical
issues in the city. With regard to the most pressing issue in Abilene, the most frequently
occurring issues were associated with (1) street repair and maintenance, (2) water
quality, supply, affordability and drainage system, (3) economically associated issues
such as jobs, business development, growth, and compensation, and (4) crime rates,
safety, and police presence (see Figure 47). Lesser cited issues, but still a concern,
included (5) broader infrastructure concerns and (6) neighborhoods and downtown
concerns.
Street repair and maintenance was the main concern with 26% of respondents
making reference to the need to repair, provide maintenance, and fix the streets and
potholes. This was the main issue for both online and paper respondents, mentioned 6
times more often than any of the other issues generated by the open-ended question.
Following streets, the next most common issue of concern for residents, with
3.51% of respondents citing it, related to characteristics of the drinking water (quality,
taste, supply, cost, color, etc.), storm water management and the need to improve the
drainage system, and the impact flooding has on creating potholes. The water and
drainage system issue was cited more often by citizens who responded using the paper
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 71 of 154
71
survey (second highest issue of concern) than by online respondents (fourth highest
issue of concern).
The third most cited issue of concern for Abilene residents (3.48%) was related to
business development through decrease in taxes, particularly property taxes (considered
to be too high by many respondents). There is a perception of waste or excessive
spending as it relates to tax dollars by this group of respondents, and a perception that
spending does not necessarily remain within budgets.
The fourth most common area of concern in the qualitative responses (3.46%)
was the increase in crimes, specifically drug and sexual abuse-related crimes, and the
need to ensure safety by increasing police presence around the city.
Other issues of concern that were expressed by fewer than 2.5% of citizens
include the need to provide better and more affordable housing to low income
populations including homeless people, development and revitalization of downtown,
remodeling of abandoned buildings, the construction of a downtown hotel, and the
importance to clean up main roads, street neighborhoods, and alleys, as well as a
request to incorporate curbside recycling services.
Figure 47, below, provides a graphic presentation of the most frequently occurring
words associated with this question.
Figure 47. Word Cloud for “Most Important Issue” Facing Abilene
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 72 of 154
72
The second open-ended question was designed to evoke responses about
facilities or amenities that might or might not currently be under consideration by city
leaders. This question received 2,498 responses, 540 less than the first open ended
question. As is characteristic of qualitative data, responses present some challenges in
analysis, but the three most common categories that emerged from the computer-
assisted analysis are clustered around park and recreational facilities, downtown
development, and infrastructure improvements.
In terms of parks and recreational facilities, both online and paper respondents
requested construction of new parks--specifically water and dog parks, improvement of
existing parks, and construction of recreational facilities and sport complex for youth and
families, as well as senior citizens. Outdoor facilities that were cited as needing
improvement included hiking and biking trails. A total of 7% of the responses to this
question centered around these types of amenities or projects.
With regard to the downtown, facilities and amenities most commonly cited include
(1) a downtown hotel associated with convention resources, (2) retail development
including restaurants and entertainment venues such as a movie theater, and (3) general
investment in improving the downtown’s attractiveness.
The third most frequently identified new amenities reported by Abilene residents
were those related to infrastructure improvements that are connected to the biggest
issues presented in the first open-ended question: street maintenance (2.25%), followed
by water supply and drainage system (0.69%). Many residents believe that, rather than
the construction of any building or facility, the improvement of infrastructure is what
Abilene requires in order to improve its quality of life.
Issues that were still a concern, but that generated fewer than 0.50% of
responses, included: (1) affordable housing projects; (2) renovation of schools; (3)
recycling facilities and services; (4) more variety of restaurants; (5) expansion of the city’s
zoo; and, (6) increase in police presence and safe neighborhoods. Figure 48 presents a
Word Cloud for “Amenities or Facilities that should be built” in Abilene.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 73 of 154
73
Figure 48. Word Cloud for “Amenities or Facilities that should be built” in Abilene
Implications
The qualitative analysis of the open-ended questions yields relatively consistent
results when compared to the quantitative components of the survey. Consistent with
other ratings, streets, water and downtown development all are of high priority to
respondents. No new major projects or amenities surfaced, although emphasis on
downtown hotel development (already a city priority) was emphasized. An implicit theme
in the second question was a preference for improvement or upgrading of existing
elements over the initiation of large, new projects; this is not necessarily inconsistent with
the relatively lukewarm response to bond proposals that were included in the survey.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 74 of 154
74
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report summarizes the findings of a community survey of 4,209 residents of
Abilene, Texas, who completed either electronic (n = 2,669) or paper (n = 1,540)
instruments that addressed perceptions of the city’s attainment of its goals, evaluation of
performance in ten key city functions, and levels of support for future development that
would require increased tax-based investment in the community. The sample of
respondents underrepresents critical non-white segments of the population (specifically
Hispanics and African Americans), younger citizens, and lower income residents of the
city.
Respondents are most positive about the city achieving a high quality of life,
fostering community engagement, encouraging economic growth, and practicing effective
governance; however, in no area do residents rand achievement in those areas above
slight agreement. They are least positive about the city’s reputation as having a well-
maintained and reliable infrastructure. Its quality of service and financial discipline are
seen as only “neutral” in achievement. While there are differences by various
demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity), those differences are rarely meaningful,
although sometimes statistically significant.
With regard to major service areas, respondents give highest rankings in
satisfaction to the library and to safety (sense of safety and security in various
settings). Lowest ratings of satisfaction are with city maintenance. Other service areas
fall between these two outlier groups. Expectations are highest for water and safety
functions, and lowest for the library. The largest gaps between performance and
expectations lie in the areas of maintenance (which includes street maintenance), water
service expectations, and community services (which includes police, fire, and other
major city departments). Lowest gaps between performance and expectations are for the
library, public health services, and parks and recreation.
Within the community services area, there is greatest dissonance between
performance and expectations with streets and street maintenance, storm water
management, water utilities, planning and development, and code enforcement. Only
the zoo, municipal court, and public health departments demonstrate performance that is
generally consistent with expectations.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 75 of 154
75
With regard to safety within the city, nighttime safety, the downtown after business
hours, and safety in local traffic are reported as having a performance gap where
expectations substantially exceed satisfaction.
Library services are characterized by performance that exceeds expectations in all
components.
With regard to parks and recreation, citizens are quite positive about the zoo, and
rank its performance “above expectations.” On the other hand, bathrooms in the parks
and biking/hiking trails are rated low, while having high expectations by citizens. The
number of parks is consistent with expectations, including number and quality of outdoor
fields.
City maintenance is an area where there is substantial difference between
perceived performance and expectations. This is most obvious with streets, including
neighborhood street maintenance, street sweeping, and lighting, and neighborhood
appearance. The most consistent assessment of expectations versus performance is
with downtown maintenance and preservation.
With regard to public health services, performance and expectations are both
reported in modest terms, with little discrepancy between perceptions of the two. This
finding may be biased by the overrepresentation of high-income residents, and the
underrepresentation of Hispanics and African Americans in the sample.
Solid waste services reveal that most residents have high expectations about
these services, but only see performance as relatively consistent with those expectations
with trash collection and commercial solid waste collection services. Brush removal, cost
of solid waste services, and effectiveness of special cleanups are seen as not meeting
expectations.
While residents rate all water service functions as very important, they only see
sewer service and reliability of water and sewer services as generally performing up to
expectations. Affordability, taste, and clarity of tap water reveal broad discrepancies
between perception of service and expectations.
Customer service expectations are also high, yet perceptions of performance do
not closely match those expectations, according to respondents. Follow up, response
time, and adequately dealing with problems were most markedly discrepant from
expectations. The least discrepancy was found with city employees’ ability to treat
persons with dignity, courtesy and respect, and with bus services being timely (although
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 76 of 154
76
this finding is also perhaps suspect due to underrepresentation of segments of the
population most likely to us them).
City communications do not always match citizen expectations, particularly with
respect to keeping citizens informed with proper frequency of communication, including
information from both city employees and city council members. At the same time, the
website, newspaper and television coverage, and information included with billing were
found to be more consistent with expectations, if not fully meeting them.
With respect to support for future development, there is broad and enthusiastic
support for addressing street issues in Abilene, with the exception of addressing
handicap parking issues. While there are difference based on demographic factors, most
are not substantial, and do not deviate from the overall trends.
Downtown development requiring tax increases are less enthusiastically
supported, but still reflect marginal expressions of positive support. Street landscaping
and establishment of architectural standards for downtown development are the least
supported, and street landscaping efforts have significantly more support from higher
income residents. There is also wide discrepancy in support based on ethnicity (with
Hispanics, African Americans and Asian citizens generally more supportive than whites
and some other groups) and based on current housing situations (with home owners less
supportive than others).
Support for the four possible bond initiatives is unenthusiastic. Age is negatively
correlated with support, and there is wide difference based on housing types, with renters
more positive than homeowners across the board, possibly reflecting concerns by
homeowners about property tax rates.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 77 of 154
77
REFERENCES
Abilene, Texas: Preservation survey and plan, 1979. (1979). Abilene, Texas : City of
Abilene, 1979.
Citizen survey. (n.d.). Unpublished manuscript, City of Denison, Texas, US.
ETC Institute (2010). 2009 community survey: Final report. Unpublished manuscript,
City of Abilene, Texas, US . pp’
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What
can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314.
doi:10 . 1080/02602930701293231
United States Census Bureau, Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015). (2015, July
1). Retrieved December 03, 2016, from
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/4801000
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Abilene city, Texas. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2018,
from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/abilenecitytexas/PST045217
Van Ryzin, G. G., Muzzio, D., & Immersahr, S. (2004). Drivers and Consequences of
Citizen Satisfaction: An Application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index
Model to New York City. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 331-341.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 78 of 154
78
APPENDIX A
Paper Version of the Survey (English and Spanish)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 79 of 154
Abilene Citizen Perceptions
of Major City Functions
A study conducted by the Institute for Social and Community Development
School of Social Work
Abilene Christian University
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 126 of 154
Background to the Study
Primary Investigators:
Dr. Kyeonghee (Kay) Jang, Assistant Professor of Social Work
Desiree Sanabria Guadamuz, MSSW Candidate
Dr. Thomas (Tom) Winter, Professor and Director, ACU School of Social Work
Special Thanks to:
Minsuk (Peter) Jang, MSSW
Abbey Green, MSSW
Debora Viana, MSSW Candidate
Frediane Ndikumana, MSSW Candidate
Kennedy Morrison, MSSW
Cooper Spruill, MSSW
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 127 of 154
Timeline
Fall 2016: Initial Conversations (Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager, Mr. James
Childers, Assistant City Manager)
Spring and Fall 2017: Design, Review and Revision of Survey (including
Spanish version)
April 2018: Collection of Data (electronic survey close date 4/30/2018)
Summer 2018: Analysis and Preparation of Report
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 128 of 154
What Did We Ask? Design of the
Survey
Content Areas:
City Goals
Major City Functions
Future Development
Demographic Information on Respondents
Methodology: Mixed
Quantitative Data
Satisfaction
Expectations
Qualitative Data (Open-Ended Questions)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 129 of 154
Who Did We Ask? Sampling Strategy
All Households with Residential Water/Sewer Service (35,991)
Screening questions to assure competency to answer (e.g., adult, household
member, Abilene resident)
Approaches:
Paper Surveys (Letter of Invitation and Copy of Survey with Return Mail Envelope)
(10,000 households)
Paper Notice with Electronic Link for Participation (10,884 households)
Electronic Notice with Link (15,107 households)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 130 of 154
Who Responded?
Category Total On-Line Paper
1. Number of cases invited to survey 35,991 25,991 10,000
2. Number of surveys obtained 4,431 2,883 1,548
3. Number of cases with at least one valid
answer 4,209 2,669 1,540
Response rate (= 3 / 1) 11.7% 10.3% 15.5%
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 131 of 154
Description of Respondents
Total of 4,209 with at least one valid response to the survey
Over-representation of Whites, under-representation of Hispanic and African
American citizens
Over-representation of persons 50+
Roughly similar numbers of men and women
Slight over-representation of higher educated citizens
Most respondents long-time residents of Abilene (nearly 6 in 10 have lived here
more than 25 years)
Home-owners over-represented (renters under-represented)
Estimated income of respondents about 40% higher than median
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 132 of 154
Current City Goals and How
Performance on Goals Was Measured
Seven Goals Identified by the City for the Research Team:
Goal 1: The City of Abilene practices effective governance.
Goal 2: The City of Abilene exercises sound financial discipline.
Goal 3: The City of Abilene enjoys a high quality of life.
Goal 4: The City of Abilene is well known for well-maintained and reliable
municipal infrastructure.
Goal 5: The City of Abilene consistently provides excellent service.
Goal 6: The City of Abilene encourages economic growth.
Goal 7: The City of Abilene actively fosters and seeks an engaged community.
5-point scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 133 of 154
How Abilenians See Current
Achievement of Goals
Effective
governance
Financial
disciplineQuality of life
Municipal
infrastructureExcellent service
Economic
growth
Engaged
community
Online 3.17 2.80 3.30 2.46 2.93 3.15 3.24
Paper 3.32 3.01 3.58 2.73 3.21 3.45 3.46
Total 3.24 2.91 3.44 2.59 3.07 3.30 3.35
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Goal Achievement of the City
Online Paper Total
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 134 of 154
What Does This Tell Us?
Overall, citizens believe progress is being made toward achieving goals
(Total Mean = 3.13)
In only two areas (Financial Discipline, Mean = 2.91, and Municipal Infrastructure,
Mean = 2.59) show dissatisfaction with progress toward goals
The most positive areas are Quality of Life (3.44), Community Engagement (3.35),
economic growth (3.30), and Effective Governance (3.24)
Overall, the most important factors are education and ethnicity, with higher
educated residents rating goal achievement more positively, and Hispanic
residents rating achievement more negatively.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 135 of 154
How Well Are We Doing on our Major City
Functions, and How Well Should We Be
Doing? The second section used a technique that asked citizens both to say how well the city is
doing, and to rate the importance, of 10 major city functions:
Quality of Community Services
Public Safety
Library Services
Parks and Recreation
City Maintenance
Public Health
Solid Waste Service
Water and Sewer Service
Customer Service
City Communications
Each function included multiple aspects of the services
Differences allow “Gap Analysis” (Satisfaction minus Expectations)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 136 of 154
How Satisfied are Abilenians with the
10 Areas of Services?
3.63
4.06 3.96 3.77 3.70 3.60 3.59 3.54 3.50 3.46
3.10
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Level of Satisfaction with City Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 137 of 154
How Important are the 10 City
Services?
4.26
4.754.52 4.42 4.38 4.37 4.37
4.17 4.083.88
3.7
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Importance of City Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 138 of 154
Gap Analysis Between Satisfaction and
Expectations
If expectations are significantly greater than satisfaction with services, it
should raise concerns about the City’s performance in that area
Based on the research team’s experience:
Gaps greater than 0.75 suggest areas for concern
Gaps greater than 1.0 would suggest high concern
Gaps lower than 0.5 demonstrate high congruence between expectations and
performance
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 139 of 154
Visual Presentation of Gaps
-1.28
-0.98 -0.92-0.85 -0.83
-0.67-0.56
-0.39-0.27
0.37
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Gaps between Satisfaction and Expectations
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 140 of 154
What Is Contributing to the Significant
Gaps?
Because each service area has multiple components, it is possible to
identify the areas of greatest discrepancy within each major city service
Our discussion highlights the “biggest contributors” for each function that
has been identified as having a meaningful gap
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 141 of 154
What Is Causing the Gap in
Maintenance?
Overall Gap: -1.28
Discrepancies lie with:
“Street Maintenance” (Gap of -2.86)
“Maintenance of Streets in my Neighborhood” (Gap of -1.95)
None of the other 6 components had gaps of greater than -1.00
On the bright side:
“Maintenance and Preservation of Downtown” had the least gap (-0.67)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 142 of 154
Why the Gap in Water and Sewer
Services?
Gap in Water and Sewer: -0.98
Areas of Discrepancies between satisfaction and expectations lie with:
“Affordability of My Water and Sewer Services” (Gap of -1.56)
“Taste of the Water” (Gap of -1.27)
“Clarity of Tap Water in My Home: (Gap of -1.13)
“Water Pressure in My Home” (Gap of -0.75)
Sewer service and its reliability (the other two component items in this
function) did not show meaningful discrepancies between satisfaction and
expectations
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 143 of 154
What Drives the Gap in “Quality of
Community Services?”
Gap: -0.92
Section Made Up of 11 Services
Five of the 11 component services reveal gaps of greater than 1.0:
“Streets” (Gap of -2.89)
“Storm Water” (Gap of -1.80)
“Water Utilities” (Gap of -1.17)
“Planning and Development Services” (-1.09)
“Code Enforcement” (-1.08)
On the Positive Side:
No other component service >-0.75
“Fire” and “Police” are rated VERY high on importance, but also have high levels of satisfaction, with only modest gaps (-0.26 and -0.67)
“Zoo” (Gap of +0.54)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 144 of 154
Where are the Issues with “Solid Waste
Service?”
Gap: -0.85
The areas/services with widest discrepancies between expectations and
satisfaction are:
“Brush and Bulky Removal Services” (Gap of -1.39)
“Cost of Solid Waste Services” (Gap of -1.13)
Also somewhat discrepant is:
“Overall Effectiveness of Special Cleanups” (Gap of -0.82)
Trash collection and commercial solid waste collection reveal minimal gaps
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 145 of 154
Why the Gap in “Customer Service”
Overall Gap: -0.83
Of the 10 component statements in the survey making up this city function, three reveal gaps of greater than -1.00:
“Follow up from the City to ensure my concerns were addressed” (Gap of -1.31)
“The correct employee returned my call within a reasonable time” (Gap of -1.08)
“The problem was adequately dealt with by the employee responding” (Gap of -1.00)
Four reveal moderate discrepancies, with most close to -1.00 :
“Directed to the department or person who could resolve my problem on the first attempt” (Gap of -0.98)
“The employee gave me a straight answer” (Gap of -0.94)
“Asked adequate questions to determine the nature of the problem ” (Gap of -0.90)
“The people I talked to showed pride and concern for quality of their work ” (Gap of -0.84)
Three have gaps of less than 0.75:
“The primary employee I worked with represented the City in a positive manner through his or her actions” (Gap of -0.73)
“The employee treated me with dignity, courtesy and respect” (Gap of -0.68)
“CityLink's (The City's Public Transportation Service) Buses run during a convenient time of day for me ” (Gap of -0.50)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 146 of 154
What Do Abilenians Want to See in the
City’s Future Development Plans?
Three areas of future development that the City of Abilene has discussed in
the recent past were placed before citizens for response
Street Repair and Development
Downtown Development
Potential Bond-Funded Facility Investments related to Recreation
In order of support:
Streets (4.11 out of 5)—Strong Support
Downtown Development (3.62 out of 5)—Modest Support
Bond-Funded Recreational Resources (2.82)—Mild Opposition
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 147 of 154
Priorities in Street Projects
Priorities with the highest support include:
Pothole Repair and General Maintenance (4.73 out of 5)
Clearing Brush and Overhanging Tree Limbs from Public Right of Way and
Alleyways (4.19 out of 5)
Street Lighting and Traffic Light Sequencing (4.09 out of 5)
Even the lowest proposed project was modestly supported
Handicap Parking (3.43 out of 5)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 148 of 154
Importance of Downtown
Development Projects
Five possible projects were presented for the Downtown area
All were modestly supported, but none had a level of support greater than 3.80 out of 5
Greatest support was for:
Encouraging the Historic Atmosphere of the Downtown area (3.80 out of 5)
Creating an Open Space for Special Event Venues (3.74 out of 5)
Encouraging Multiple Types of Housing Opportunities in the Downtown (3.60)
Improve Landscaping on Downtown Streets (3.52 out of 5)
Least support, but still modestly supported was:
Requiring Building Facades to Meet Architectural Standards to Enhance Downtown’s Historic Flavor (3.45 out of 5)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 149 of 154
Support for Potential Bond Options
Only one of the four options for bond-supported recreational projects was
rated above 3.00 out of 5
“Modern Recreation Center” support was 3.01 out of 5
This should not be interpreted as indicating meaningful support for the project
The other three options, from the least opposed to the most opposed, are:
“Hike and Bike Trails in Addition to the Cedar Creek Trail” (2.88 out of 5)
“Expansion to the Adventure Cove Aquatic Park” (2.74 out of 5)
“New Lighted Sports Complex” (2.66 out of 5)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 150 of 154
Open-Ended Questions
Two open-ended questions were included that asked citizens to:
Identify the Most Important Issue Facing Abilene (3,038 responses)
Identify Up to Three Facilities or Amenities that would Enhance Quality of Life
(2,498 responses)
Analyzed using special software that detects patterns in responses (“N-
Vivo”)
General Observation: The qualitative data are largely consistent with, and
validate, the quantitative data (“triangulation”)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 151 of 154
Themes on Most Important Issues
Street Repair and Maintenance
Water-related issues, including quality of drinking water
Issues associated with Business Development
Concerns about impact of taxes (especially property taxes) on development
Perception of excessive spending by local governments
Safety and Crime Control, especially drug-related crimes and enforcement
of existing laws
Minor Themes:
Housing, especially affordable housing for low and moderate income families
Revitalization of the Downtown area (remodeling of abandoned buildings, new
downtown hotel)
Neighborhood and street cleanups
Curbside recycling service
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 152 of 154
Priorities for New Facilities/Amenities to
Improve Quality of Life
Most frequently identified were:
Park and recreation resources (both new parks and improvements to existing
parks), construction of sports complex to serve youth and families
Street and other infrastructure improvements, including water supply and
drainage systems
Development of the downtown, including hotel, retail development including
restaurants and entertainment venues, and investment in the attractiveness of
the downtown area
Somewhat less frequently identified were:
Affordable housing (low income and special needs populations)
Expansion of the zoo
Increased support for police presence in neighborhoods
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 153 of 154
Concluding Observations
Results should be interpreted positively about Abilene and its city government
Progress is being made on the achievement of major city goals
Overall, citizens are positive about all 10 major functions that the city government is engaged in
Citizens do express a willingness to support the funding of certain priority issues (streets in particular, and downtown development to a lesser degree)
Results also provide suggestions for priority areas to further enhance Abilene’s image as a community with positive quality of life
Gaps between satisfaction and expectations are real in some areas
Much of the disconnect is associated with a relatively discrete area: Road and infrastructure maintenance and development
Focus on a limited number of critical component issues of major functions could yield quick and meaningful improvements overall
Interpretation should include sensitivity and awareness of under-representation of key segments of the population; the breakdown sections in the larger report should be studied carefully to note where significant differences were observed among respondents from those groups
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Page 154 of 154
TO: Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Mr. Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director/Planning and Development Services
SUBJECT:
Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-26 A request from JDKDevelopment, agent Enprotec / Hibbs & Todd, to rezone property located in 7300 blockof Buffalo Gap Road, specifically at northwest corner of Wagon Wheel Drive andBuffalo Gap Road from Agricultural Open Space/Corridor Overlay (AO/COR) andAgricultural Open Space (AO) to General Retail/Corridor Overlay (GR/COR) for thefirst 540’, which coincides with the west line of the corridor overlay and thenNeighborhood Retail (NR) for the remaining eastern portion due to its’ close proximityto neighbor residence (Zack Rainbow)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The applicant is requesting to rezone 7.06 acres of land from Agricultural Open Space (AO) and AgriculturalOpen Space/Corridor (AO/COR) to General Retail (GR) and General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels a more appropriate zoning classification would be General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR) for the first540’, which coincides with the west line of the corridor overlay and then Neighborhood Retail (NR) for theremaining eastern portion due to its’ close proximity to neighbor residence. The Neighborhood Retail (NR)would limit building sizes, signage, and hours of operation.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the planning staff recommendation by a voteof five (5) with one (1) abstaining and none (0) in opposition.
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 1 of 26
Description TypeOrdinance Cover OrdinanceOrdinance Exhibit ExhibitStaff Report Backup MaterialNotification Mail Out Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 2 of 26
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE, "LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE ABILENE CITY CODE, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AFFECTING CERTAIN PROPERTIES; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING;
PROVIDING A PENALTY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS: PART 1: That Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations) of the Land Development Code of the City
of Abilene, is hereby amended by changing the zoning district boundaries as set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 2: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense.
PART 3: That the Planning Director be, and is hereby authorized and directed to
change the official Zoning Map of the City of Abilene to correctly reflect the amendments thereto. PASSED ON FIRST READING the 27th day of _September A.D. 2018.
A notice of the time and place, where and when said ordinance would be given a public hearing
and considered for final passage, was published in the Abilene Reporter-News, a daily newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Abilene, said publication being on the 17th day of August, 2018, the
same being more than fifteen (15) days prior to a public hearing held in the Council Chamber of the City
Hall in Abilene, Texas, at 8:30 a.m. on the 9th day of October, 2018, to permit the public to be heard prior
to final consideration of this ordinance. Said ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten
(10) days after its publication in the newspaper, as provided by Section 19 of the Charter of the City of
Abilene.
PASSED ON FINAL READING THIS 9th day of October, A.D. 2018.
ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY SECRETARY MAYOR
APPROVED:
______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 3 of 26
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
EXHIBIT A
Rezone property from Agricultural Open Space/Corridor Overlay (AO/COR) and
Agricultural Open Space (AO) to General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR) for the first 540’,
coinciding with the west line of the corridor overlay and then Neighborhood Retail (NR)
for the remaining western portion.
Legal description being 7.06 vacant acres out of M. Talbot Survey 102 in Abilene, Taylor
County, Texas.
-END-
Location: 7300 block of Buffalo Gap Road, specifically at northwest corner of Wagon
Wheel Drive and Buffalo Gap Road
GR/COR NR
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 4 of 26
Case # Z-2018-26 Updated: August 21, 2018
1
ZONING CASE Z-2018-26 STAFF REPORT APPLICANT INFORMATION: Owner: JDK Development, LLC Agent: eHT
HEARING DATES: P & Z Commission: September 4, 2018 City Council 1st Reading: September 27th, 2018 City Council 2nd Reading: October 9, 2018 LOCATION: Buffalo Gap Road & Wagon Wheel Avenue
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to rezone 7.06 acres of land from Agricultural Open Space (AO) and Agricultural Open Space/Corridor (AO/COR) to General Retail (GR) and General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR).
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property encompasses approximately 7.06 acres of land. This property is undeveloped and vacant. The property has approximately 1000’ of frontage on Wagon Wheel Avenue and almost 400’ of frontage on Buffalo Gap Road.
ZONING HISTORY: The subject property was annexed in 1980 and given its zoning at the same time. Agricultural Open Space (AO) has long been considered to be a holding zone, usually, until a more appropriate zoning classification is assigned. ANALYSIS: (Chapter 1, Article 4, Division 1, Section 1.4.1.4) Current Planning Analysis
The current zoning has been Agricultural Open Space since at least 1980. The applicants are seeking a change in zoning to a General Retail (GR) and General Retail/Corridor Overlay (GR/COR). The General Retail (GR) zoning classification is intended for a wide variety of retail trade and services aimed primarily towards household consumers. Such developments should occur on the intersections of major thoroughfares, in this case, a collector and an arterial street. These locations offer to maximize exposure of business to passing motorists while generally having minimal impacts on nearby residents.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 5 of 26
Case # Z-2018-26 Updated: August 21, 2018
2
Comprehensive Planning Analysis (1) The Future Land Use Development Plan map indicates the subject property to be within a Low Density Residential Area. However, the Buffalo Gap Road Corridor Study (1994) was designed to bring in commercial uses into areas that front major thoroughfares, specifically Buffalo Gap Road and avoid “strip” development which would in turn minimize the collateral effect of nearby residences. The corridor overlay extends 600’ from the street center line in east and west.
Existing Land Use Analysis (2)
The residences located to the north is primarily comprised of large (usually 2.5 acre) home sites. The residential area to the west is primarily comprised of smaller, 6000 to 8000 square feet urban sized lots.
Zoning Change Impact (3 & 4) In summary, the subject property appears to lie within an area which is developed and is likely to have little impact on schools or other public services in this area. Wagon Wheel Avenue and Buffalo Gap Road are fully improved and well equipped with sewer and water on the north and east boundaries of the lot. The proposed zoning change should fit without substantial effect on public health, safety and general welfare.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Due to the property’s location at the intersection of a collection and an arterial street, staff feels that a more appropriate zoning classification would be General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR) for the first 540’, which coincides with the west line of the corridor overlay and then Neighborhood Retail (NR) for the remaining eastern portion due to its’ close proximity to neighbor residence. The Neighborhood Retail (NR) would limit building sizes, signage, and hours of operation. This would allow for more compatibility with nearby residences.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Mr. Bixby moved to approve this request as recommended by staff. Mr. Smith seconded the
motion. The motion carried by a vote of five (5) with one (1) abstaining and none (0) in opposition.
AYES: Rosenbaum, Smith, Bixby, Noonan, Famble NAYS: None ABSTAINED: Calk
NOTIFICATION: The Planning Services Division sent, with certificate of mailing, public notices to the applicant and property owners within a 200-foot radius
Location Zoning Existing Land Use North AO/COR Residential Uses South AO/COR Church East GR/COR Vacant West RS-6 Swim Club
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 6 of 26
Case # Z-2018-26 Updated: August 21, 2018
3
OWNER SITUS RESPONSE 7F INVESTMENTS LLC 5009 WAGON WHEEL AV
BOUNDS MICHAEL L & DANITA M 4833 MEADOW DR
BRAMLETT TERESA 5010 BIG SKY DR
CORLEY ROBERT C 7326 BECK AV
GONZALEZ HECTOR J & DIANE F 7318 BECK AV HARVEY MICHAEL S & PAIGE 5002 BIG SKY DR INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL MASSEY CLEBER 7310 BECK AV MOOREHOUSE LARRY 4925 MEADOW DR MORTON AUSTIN 5001 WAGON WHEEL AV PEARCE JERRY DON & MARTHA 7342 BECK AV PICKETT MERRILL L & 5000 MEADOW DR PINEDA REO LLC 4709 MEADOW DR PINEDA REO LLC 7317 BECK AV PINEDA REO LLC PINEDA REO LLC 7474 BUFFALO GAP RD PINEDA REO LLC 7302 BUFFALO GAP RD PINEDA REO LLC SHY JASON & AMBER 7302 BECK AV SOUTHWESTERN BELL WOODRIDGE INVESTMENTS LP 7334 BECK AV WYLIE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 5009 WAGON WHEEL AV
ATTACHMENTS: Application Zoning Map Existing Land Use Map Existing Land Use Study Aerial Map Thoroughfare Map Notification Map Parcel Photographs
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 7 of 26
ACItY OF ABtENE
Development ApplicationPlanningE Conditional Use Special Exceptions 1oning Variance
U POD Amendment U Street Name Change U Thoroughfare Abandonment U Easement Release
C Historic Certirication of Appropriateness U Historic Project Tax Reduction
Relief ProceduresU Petition for Relief U Proportionality Appeal U Vested Rights Petition U AppealOther:
Project Name:
Address: V Pf.( sQcQ if (_%JC*.o4t ttft1t if lots: I Acreage: 7’. 08Legal Description: A ±4..__k t
Subdivision Name: Block: Lot:
Current Zoning: 1q C A C o K Proposed Zoning (if applicable): c:OWNER AND AUThORIZATION
OwnerName: J IC
Y1c,-(t-R r—sct,
Phon(3Z)p - Email: c c cvcccltvts4va%vvts -a
Agent Name:
Address: 4—a 2—. cr’ecLcs_—City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
Email: CtO414 &O. +u JJ w a - k4. c-
I hereby certify that lam the owner of the and further certify that the information provided on this development application is true andcorrect. I hereby designate t ore tioned agent act on my behalf for submittalrocessing, representation, and/or presentation of thisdevelopment application. e designat a ent shall be the incipal contact son for rfsponding to all requests for information and for resolvingall issues of concern rela veto this applicati .
________________
Signature Owner: — — Date: ? IC /“
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Address:
City, State, Zip:
LLC
Fax:
Received:
Case NIL:
Fee: $ 1 5oo Receipt Nu:
__________
Rniened By: 7*3
11 I P a g e
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 8 of 26
•S
UP
.EY
ED
FO
R:
JOp(
Uri[
LD
OV
EN
TLL.C
7’O
OH
[IF
At)
62
SO
S)
NIE
EN
[1
55
4).
Gr•X
523336:-i
)
S[1
40
ON
55€G
R)lftS
)4P
R.
0,lO
IS.
£S
i[S
SU
RV
EY
’S.
Sly
11)5
64630
GiF
t[S
EE
SE
EL
S5C
53Q
Ni
RIG
FITS5
55
54
0494
PYT
5045)191
AL
tOT
L79504
“0SO
Y7
44
,C
LY
C[
Xl.
795:5[2
29’
5932922
--
--
-.
CI,
54T
7PR
—-J/
‘/
.,s’i
/
1’_/ //
////
//
////
1/
W
/
SC
siSr
-to
4S
[’5[.
I-.
300
1)
SQ
L£.O
VIR
FEA
OF
ErrIE
SP
LL
ES
ISL
it1P
•X[L
EF
EE
is.wr
S5r
St
Slu
055lsrT
Eq
LII.-
I45C
ER
GR
OIJ)
PrE
[EL
-C
LI;)
115095.1
05
)7P
54
3-E
cu
-flCO
’sC11.01
MY
STIC
MEA
DO
WS
C7.
S92
9.PR
ser
OlO
rEO
ils-as-
XA
rSI-o
i-Elo
ssE
s
7.0
86
AC
RE
S
50047115
VIL
LA
GE
l.S4R
7.P
S//
p.,;
_/
7Li/
“H
II
II
C0I$
ITR
YV
ILL
AG
E-
IC
I.I.Iflfl
Ii
2
z-
1/I>
.:
-<‘/4
II-.
///
4-
-0’
/
p
.1
p
IH
ER
EB
YC
ER
TIFY
10C
EN
TE
NN
IAL
TIT
LE
CO
MPA
NY
.LLC
.A
ND
JDK
DE
VE
LO
PME
NT
LLC.
TH
AT
TH
ISFL
AT
RE
PRE
SEN
TS
ASU
RV
EY
OF
.0S
6A
CR
ES
OU
TO
F116.72
AC
RE
TR
AC
To
ur
OF
TH
EU
.T
AL
BO
TSU
RV
EY
NO
.102
AN
DN
O.
103.T
AY
LO
RC
OU
NT
Y.
TE
XA
S.
lOll
[4Itli$
fl
-PIII.
ill_AIR
ES
151111111lir
iSlI
RI
PL
IIIt
PIE03
111
111
,-iS,.
PIT
AtO
Ills’’
SpIll
IRS
CT
0-Ill.
•-ISl•
‘3111Itt
LA
Thi$
oilro
s’1:h
1il
ISS
IDA
[I-lilA
.P
-At
IRE
,131
rrCIT
h:R
lilAI
tIll
11111111
SIL
lP
IXT
ILlIS
liA
bE
l51111
Sh
INlif
TirE
’51*
CT5)1
0P
SI
[‘Till_S
OA
lILlY
.
7111$W
IM
AlT
IAIIE
RC
ISL
PLO
XI
*5
111
1II
ESII
pIll
nil
CIW
SIL
T
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 9 of 26
Taylor County. TexasM. Talbot Survey 102 & 1037.086 AcresJDK Development LLC
Attachment A
Being 7.086 acres of land out ofa 116.72 acre tract out of theM. Talbot Survey No. 102 and No. 103. TaylorCounty. Texas. said 7.086 acre tract being described as 7.06 acres in Deed of trust in Instrument NO. 20 15-115955. Official Public Records of Taylor County. Texas. and said 7.086 acres being more thoroughlydescribed as follows:
Beginning at a point, on the West right of way line of Buffalo Gap Road and the North line of said 116.72 acretract, for the Southeast corner of Mystic Meadows Addition, of record in Plat Cabinet 2. Slide No. 92-A, of theplat records of Taylor County. Texas. and the Northeast corner of this tract, from which the Northest corner oftheM. Talbot Survey No. 103 and the Southwest corner of M. Talbot Survey No. 102. bears of record by Deed,N89°44’30”W 5093.05’, 5009 l’30”E 748.2’ and S89°45’W 1806.7’;
Thence S24°36’20”W, along the West right of way line of Buffalo Gap Road, a distance of 407.11’ to a point.on the North line of Wagon Wheel Road. for the Southeast corner of this tract;
Thence N65°32’26”W, along the North line of Wagon Wheel road, at 0.7’ passing a found 3/8” rebar, andcontinuing for a total distance of 243.74’ to a found 3/8” rebar for the beginning of a curve;
Thence in a Westerly direction, along said curve to the left, on the North line of said Wagon Wheel Road, witha chord bearing and distance of S76°28’SO”W 553.83’, a deLta of 25°20’24” and a radius of 380.0’, to a pointfor a reverse curve to the right from which a found 3/8” rebar bears S46°46’W 0.3’;
Thence in a Southwesterly direction, along said curve to the right, on the North line of said Wagon Wheel Road.with a chord bearing and distance ofS5 I °l0 17”W 166.69. a delta of 75°57’28” and a radius of 450.0’, to apoint for the Southeast corner of Section No. I, Country Village Addition, of record Plat Cabinet No. I, Slide487. of the Plat Records of Taylor Count. Texas. and the Southwest corner of this tract, from which a found ‘A”rebar bears N01°46W 0.3’;
Thence N00°24’53”E. along the East line of said County Village Addition, at 500.59’passing a set ¼” rebarwith a cap, marked ‘ESTES 5003”, at 509.89’ passing a found 3/8” rebar. and continuing for a total distance of510.59’ to a point, on the south line of said Mystic Meadows Addition, for the Northwest corner of this tract;
Thence S89°36’01’E a distance of 1056.05’ to the point of beginning. containing 7.086 acres of land more orless.
Surveyed on the ground April 10, 2018.
Diehl Estes RPLS 50034194 PR 1191Baird Texas, 79504(325) 893-2822
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 10 of 26
7F INVESTMENTS LLC 2333 PRESTON TRL ABILENE, TX 79606-4384
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: Rezoning Application Number Z-2018-26 08/23/2018
The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 4th, 2018 at 1:30 PM, in City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall, N. 5th and Walnut Streets, to recommend approval or denial to City Council on a request from JDK Development, agent Enprotec / Hibbs & Todd, to rezone property from Agricultural Open Space/Corridor Overlay (AO/COR) and Agricultural Open Space (AO) to General Retail/Corridor Overlay (GR/COR) and General Retail (GR). Legal description being 7.06 vacant acres out of M. Talbot Survey 102 in Abilene, Taylor County, Texas and located in 7300 block of Buffalo Gap Road, specifically at northwest corner of Wagon Wheel Drive and Buffalo Gap Road. This hearing is open to any interested person. Opinions, objections and/or comments relative to this matter may be expressed in writing or in person at the hearing. At the bottom of this letter is a form that you may cut off, fill out, and mail. Comments are also accepted by email or fax as listed below. All responses must be signed.
The attached map shows the area of the request. Only that area which is bounded by the cross-hatched line on the map is being considered for rezoning. The solid boundary line around the subject area is only a notification area. If approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission or if denied and appealed to Abilene’s City Council within the specified ten-day period, this case will be heard by City Council for 2nd and Final Reading with a public hearing on October 9th, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, 555 Walnut Street. If you have any questions, please contact Zack Rainbow, Interim Assistant Director of Planning Services at (325) 676-6237 or zack.rainbow@abilenetx.gov For the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Please call (325) 676-6237 if you have any questions about this notice.
CASE #: Z-2018-26 You may indicate your position on the above request by detaching this sheet at the dotted line and returning it to the address below. You may attach additional sheets if needed. You may also fax or email your position to the fax number or email address also listed below. All correspondence must include your name and address. Name: 7F INVESTMENTS LLC
Address: 5009 WAGON WHEEL AV
Mailing To: Planning and Development Services Fax #: (325) 676-6288 P.O. Box 60, Abilene TX 79604-0060 email: planning@abilenetx.com
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 11 of 26
I am in favor I am opposed
Additional Comments: Signature:
NOTIFICATION AREA MAP
Z-2018-26
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 12 of 26
Owner: JDK Development
Request: Rezone 7.06 acres of land from Agricultural Open Space (AO) and Agricultural Open Space/Corridor (AO/COR) to General Retail (GR) and General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR). Location: Buffalo Gap Road & Wagon Wheel AvenueNotification: 0 in favor, 0 opposed
Staff Recommendation:
Staff feels that a more appropriate zoning classification would be General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR) for the first 540’, which coincides with the west line of the corridor overlay and then Neighborhood Retail (NR) for the remaining eastern portion due to its’ close proximity to neighbor residence.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of Staff Recommendation.
Z-2018-26
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 13 of 26
• The applicant is requesting to rezone 7.06 acres of land from Agricultural Open Space (AO) and Agricultural Open Space/Corridor (AO/COR) to General Retail (GR) and General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR).
• This property is undeveloped and vacant. The property has approximately 1000’ of frontage on Wagon Wheel Avenue and almost 400’ of frontage on Buffalo Gap Road.
• The subject property was annexed in 1980 and given its zoning at the same time. Agricultural Open Space (AO) has long been considered to be a holding zone, usually, until a more appropriate zoning classification is assigned.
Application ReviewZ-2018-26
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 14 of 26
• The Buffalo Gap Road Corridor Study (1994) was designed to bring in commercial uses into areas that front major thoroughfares, specifically Buffalo Gap Road and avoid “strip” development which would in turn minimize the collateral effect of nearby residences. The corridor overlay extends 600’ from the street center line in east and west.
Application ReviewZ-2018-26
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 15 of 26
Z-2018-26 Zoning Map (with Staff and P&Z recommendation)
GR/CORNR
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 17 of 26
Z-2018-26 Notification Map
N0- In Favor-
0- Opposed-
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 20 of 26
Z-2018-26 Views of Subject Property and Adjacent Properties
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 21 of 26
Existing Uses in AO Zoning
RESIDENTAL USES:C Bed & BreakfastP Dwelling– Industrialized Housing UnitP Dwelling – Single-Family DetachedC Vacation Travel Trailer Park
ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL USES:P Accessory Structure (Also see Division 4 of this article)P Antenna, Non-Commercial/AmateurP Animal LotP Day Care Operation – Home-BasedP Dwelling – AccessoryTP Field Office or Construction Office (temporary)P Garage SaleP Home OccupationC Mobile Home (permanent security residence)C Mobile Home (temporary security residence)TP Subdivision Sales Office (temporary)P Swimming Pool, Private (accessory to residential use)P Tennis Court, Private (accessory to residential use)
CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL USES:p Civic, Social, and Fraternal OrganizationP Fairgrounds/RodeoC Motorized RacingC Recreation – Outdoors (active)P Recreation – Outdoors (passive)P Zoo
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE USES:P Community HomeC Correction, Detention, or Penal FacilitiesP Fire/Police StationC Military and Armed Forces Reserve CenterC Sanitary Landfill
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS USES:C Cemetery, Crematorium, and MausoleumP Church or Place of WorshipP School: Public/Private
SERVICEC Kennel (with outdoor pens)P Kennel (without outdoor pens)P Veterinary Service (all size animals)
TRADE – RETAIL USESC Liquor Store (on premises consumption) (Defined under Liquor Store)
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UTILITIES:C Airport, Heliport and Flying Field Terminals – CommercialC Antenna Tower – CommercialP Public Utility FacilityC Utility Generation, Production, Treatment
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION USES:P Farming, Ranching & Livestock, HatcheryC MiningC Petroleum or Gas Well
LEGENDP Permitted as a Right-of-Use (may be subject to compliance with conditions described within Section 2.4.3 of the Land
Development Code)C Permitted as a Conditional Use Permit, Requiring Approval by City CouncilTP Permitted by Temporary Permit Only, Requiring Approval by Board of AdjustmentCity Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 23 of 26
Proposed Uses in GR ZoningRESIDENTAL USES:P Bed & BreakfastP Dwelling – Industrialized Housing UnitP Dwelling – InstitutionalP Dwelling – Multiple-FamilyP Dwelling – Single Family DetachedP Hotel/Motel
ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL USES:P Accessory Structure (Also see Division 4 of this article)P Antenna, Non-Commercial/AmateurP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesP Day Care Operation – Home BasedP Drive-Thru FacilityTP Field Office or Construction Office (temporary)C Freight ContainerP Fuel SalesP Garage SalesP Home OccupationTP Itinerant BusinessP Manufacturing (incidental)TP Mobile Home (temporary security residence)P Recreation Building, MultipurposeP Recreation Equipment, Mobile (storage and parking)P Recycling Collection PointP Subdivision Sales Office (temporary)P Swimming Pools, Private (accessory to residential use)P Tennis Courts, Private (accessory to residential use)P/SE Wind Energy Conversion Systems
CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL USES:P Civic, Social, and Fraternal OrganizationP Cultural FacilitiesC Recreation – Outdoors (active)P Recreation – Outdoors (passive)P Recreation and Commercial Entertainment - Indoor
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE USES:C Ambulance ServiceP Fire/Police StationP Medical/Dental LaboratoryP Post OfficeC Social Service Facility
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS USES:P Arts SchoolP Church or Place of WorshipP Day-Care Operation - Center-BasedP Educational and Scientific ResearchP School: Public/PrivateC Trade/Business SchoolP University/College
SERVICEP/C Automobile WashC Funeral Home/ Mortuary/MorgueP Kennel (Without Outdoor Pens)P Laundry/Dry Cleaning Services & FacilitiesP Office (general, professional, financial)P Personal ServicesC Printing, Copying, Reproduction, PublishingP Repair and Maintenance Services - Automobile/Small Truck (minor)P Repair and Maintenance Services (indoor)C Tattoo ParlorP Veterinary Service (small animals)
TRADE – RETAIL USESP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesP Fuel SalesP Liquor Store (Off Premises Consumption) (Defined under Liquor Store)
P Liquor Store (On Premises Consumption) (Defined under Liquor Store)
P Restaurant, Fast FoodP Restaurant, StandardP Retail Sales/Rental (indoor)C Retail Sales/Rental (outdoors, non-vehicle)
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UTILITIES:C Antenna Tower- CommercialP Automobile Parking Lot or Structure - CommercialP Broadcast StudioP Public Utility Facility
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION USES:P Petroleum or Gas WellP Urban Garden
LEGENDP Permitted as a Right-of-Use (may be subject to compliance with conditions described within Section 2.4.3 of the Land Development Code)C Permitted as a Conditional Use Permit, Requiring Approval by City CouncilTP Permitted by Temporary Permit Only, Requiring Approval by Board of AdjustmentCity Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 24 of 26
Proposed Uses in NR Zoning
RESIDENTAL USES:P Bed & BreakfastP Dwelling - DuplexP Dwelling – Industrialized Housing UnitP Dwelling – InstitutionalP Dwelling – Multiple-FamilyP Dwelling – Single Family DetachedC Hotel/Motel
ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL USES:P Accessory Structure (Also see Division 4 of this article)P Antenna, Non-Commercial/AmateurP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesP Day Care Operation – Home BasedC Drive-Thru FacilityTP Field Office or Construction Office (temporary)C Fuel SalesP Garage SalesP Home OccupationC Mobile Home (temporary security residence)P Recreation Building, MultipurposeP Recreation Equipment, Mobile (storage and parking)C Recycling Collection PointP Subdivision Sales Office (temporary)P Swimming Pools, Private (accessory to residential use)P Tennis Courts, Private (accessory to residential use)P/SE Wind Energy Conversion Systems
CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL USES:P Civic, Social, and Fraternal OrganizationC Cultural FacilitiesP Recreation – Outdoors (passive)C Recreation and Commercial Entertainment - Indoor
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE USES:
P Fire/Police StationC Medical/Dental LaboratoryP Post OfficeC Social Service Facility
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS USES:P Arts SchoolP Church or Place of WorshipP Day-Care Operation - Center-BasedP School: Public/Private
SERVICEC Automobile WashP Laundry/Dry Cleaning Services & FacilitiesP Office (general, professional, financial)P Personal ServicesC Printing, Copying, Reproduction, PublishingP Repair and Maintenance Services (indoor)C Tattoo ParlorP Veterinary Service (small animals)
TRADE – RETAIL USESP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesC Fuel SalesP Liquor Store (Off Premises Consumption) (Defined under Liquor Store)
C Restaurant, Fast FoodP Restaurant, StandardP Retail Sales/Rental (indoor)
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UTILITIES:C Broadcast StudioP Public Utility Facility
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION USES:P Petroleum or Gas Well
LEGENDP Permitted as a Right-of-Use (may be subject to compliance with conditions described within Section 2.4.3
of the Land Development Code)C Permitted as a Conditional Use Permit, Requiring Approval by City CouncilTP Permitted by Temporary Permit Only, Requiring Approval by Board of Adjustment
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 25 of 26
• Request: Rezone 7.06 acres of land from Agricultural Open Space (AO) and Agricultural Open Space/Corridor (AO/COR) to General Retail (GR) and General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR).
• Location: Buffalo Gap Road & Wagon Wheel Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
Staff feels that a more appropriate zoning classification would be General Retail/Corridor (GR/COR) for the first 540’, which coincides with the west line of the corridor overlay and then Neighborhood Retail (NR) for the remaining eastern portion due to its’ close proximity to neighbor residence.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of Staff Recommendation.
Staff CommentsZ-2018-26
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 14, Page 26 of 26
TO: Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Mr. Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director/Planning and Development Services
SUBJECT:
Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-27 A request from HendrickMedical Center, agent Duane Martin, to rezone seven (7) lots from RS-6 (ResidentialSingle Family) to MU (Medical Use) addressed at 1901, 1909, 1917, 1925, 1933, 1941and 1949 Walnut Street (Zack Rainbow)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The applicants are requesting to rezone seven now-vacant lots from Residential Single Family (RS-6) toMedical Use (MU)
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this item by a vote of five (5) with one (1)abstaining and none (0) in opposition.
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeOrdinance Cover OrdinanceOrdinance Exhibit ExhibitStaff Report Backup MaterialSPO Responses Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 1 of 44
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE, "LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE ABILENE CITY CODE, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AFFECTING CERTAIN PROPERTIES; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING;
PROVIDING A PENALTY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS: PART 1: That Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations) of the Land Development Code of the City
of Abilene, is hereby amended by changing the zoning district boundaries as set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 2: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense.
PART 3: That the Planning Director be, and is hereby authorized and directed to
change the official Zoning Map of the City of Abilene to correctly reflect the amendments thereto. PASSED ON FIRST READING the 27th day of _September A.D. 2018.
A notice of the time and place, where and when said ordinance would be given a public hearing
and considered for final passage, was published in the Abilene Reporter-News, a daily newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Abilene, said publication being on the 17th day of August, 2018, the
same being more than fifteen (15) days prior to a public hearing held in the Council Chamber of the City
Hall in Abilene, Texas, at 8:30 a.m. on the 9th day of October, 2018, to permit the public to be heard prior
to final consideration of this ordinance. Said ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten
(10) days after its publication in the newspaper, as provided by Section 19 of the Charter of the City of
Abilene.
PASSED ON FINAL READING THIS 9th day of October, A.D. 2018.
ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY SECRETARY MAYOR
APPROVED:
______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 2 of 44
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
EXHIBIT A
Rezone seven (7) lots from RS-6 (Residential Single Family) to MU (Medical Use).
Legal description being Lots 1 thru 4 in I.D. McEachern Subdivision of South 200 Feet of
Lot 2, Block 6, Central Park Addition as well as Lots 8 thru 10 in I.D. McEachern’s
Subdivision of Part of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Block 6, Central Park Addition, Abilene, Taylor
County, Texas.
-END-
Location: 1901, 1909, 1917, 1925, 1933, 1941 and 1949 Walnut Street
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 3 of 44
Case # Z-2018-27 Updated: September 10, 2018
1
ZONING CASE Z-2018-27 STAFF REPORT APPLICANT INFORMATION: Owner: Hendrick Medical Center Agent: Duane Martin
HEARING DATES: P & Z Commission: September 4, 2018 City Council 1st Reading: September 27th, 2018 City Council 2nd Reading: October 9th, 2018 LOCATION: 1901, 1909, 1917, 1925, 1933, 1941, 1949 Walnut Street
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicants are requesting to rezone seven now-vacant lots from Residential Single Family (RS-6) to Medical Use (MU)
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property is comprised of seven lots having a total of approximately 1.12 acres of land. These seven lots are currently vacant, however, all seven lots were at one time occupied with a single-family residence at one time.
ZONING HISTORY: The subject property was annexed in 1911. This subject properties have been encompassed within a RS-6 zoning district since (at least) the current zoning map was adopted in 1974. ANALYSIS: (Chapter 1, Article 4, Division 1, Section 1.4.1.4) Current Planning Analysis
The current zoning has been Residential Single Family (RS-6) since at least 1974. The applicants are seeking a change in zoning to Medical Use (MU). The Medical Use (MU) zoning classification is intended to provide high quality medical-related development as well as create compatibility between medical-related uses and nearby residences.
Comprehensive Planning Analysis (1) The Future Land Use Development Plan map indicates the subject property to be within a Special Activity Center, due to the proximity to Hendrick Medical Center and Hardin-Simmons University. The location of the subject properties, in proximity to Hendrick Medical Center, makes these seven lots a likely location for expansion.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 4 of 44
Case # Z-2018-27 Updated: September 10, 2018
2
Existing Land Use Analysis (2)
A General Commercial (GC) zoning district sits east of Hardy Street and is occupied by an automotive repair shop. Other structures in this district are occupied by a maintenance/warehouse used by Hendrick Medical Center. The proposed zoning would have no conflicts with these nearby uses.
Zoning Change Impact (3 & 4) In summary, the subject property appears to lie within an area which is developed and is likely to have little impact on schools or other public services in this area. The proposed zoning change should fit without substantial effect on public health, safety and general welfare. Walnut Street is equipped with 50’ of right of way with 30’ width of pavement, and the opposite side of the property fronts Hardy Street, which has 30’ of pavement as well. The two frontages justify a rezoning for some nonresidential uses. The site is equipped with a four (4”) inch cast iron water line that is insufficient for hydrant use and will need to be upgraded in the future, or as a condition for future building construction.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The subject property lies just one block west from Hendrick Medical Center (approx. 465’). The first 315’ of that separation is already embraced with a Medical Use (MU) zoning district. City staff contends that Medical Use zoning at the requested seven properties is an appropriate fit for the area and fits an ongoing trend of Hendrick Medical Center expansions.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Mr. Bixby moved to approve this request as presented. Mr. Noonan seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a vote of five (5) with one (1) abstaining and none (0) in opposition. AYES: Rosenbaum, Smith, Bixby, Noonan, Famble NAYS: None ABSTAINED: Calk
NOTIFICATION: The Planning Services Division sent, with certificate of mailing, public notices to the applicant and property owners within a 200-foot radius
OWNER SITUS RESPONSE BURKS GLENDA LOU 1957 WALNUT ST Opposed CUTBIRTH HARLEAN 1925 HARDY ST CUTBIRTH HARLEAN 1949 HARDY ST FINCHER A D MRS 1934 WALNUT ST Opposed
Location Zoning Existing Land Use North RS-6 Residential Uses South RS-6 Residential Uses East GC Automotive Repair West RS-6 Medical Uses
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 5 of 44
Case # Z-2018-27 Updated: September 10, 2018
3
FRANCO PETER PAUL & PETRA 1857 WALNUT ST HENDRICK MEDICAL 950 N 19TH ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1865 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1950 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1942 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 2042 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1958 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1858 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1878 MESQUITE ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1909 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1941 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1901 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1949 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1925 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1925 WALNUT ST APT B In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1933 WALNUT ST In Favor HENDRICK MEDICAL CENTER 1917 WALNUT ST In Favor HOWELL REBECCA ANN G 742 N 19TH ST Opposed HOWELL TIM & REBECCA 742 N 19TH ST Opposed HOWELL TIM & REBECCA 1929 HARDY ST Opposed KAUFMAN BILL & CAROLYN 841 N 21ST ST NAJERA DIAMANTINA SOSA 1834 MESQUITE ST NIB INC & CALK ROBERT 2089 HARDY ST SELF GLYNNICE LAFAUNNE 1874 WALNUT ST SMITH GLADYS 1965 WALNUT ST TIJERINA DAVID ANTHONY 1873 WALNUT ST TIJERINA DAVID ANTHONY 1873 1/2 WALNUT ST TORRES ERNEST JR 1966 WALNUT ST TORRES ERNEST JR 1968 WALNUT ST
ATTACHMENTS: Application Zoning Map Existing Land Use Map Existing Land Use Study Aerial Map Thoroughfare Map Notification Map Parcel Photographs
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 6 of 44
(7) Lots for Requested Zoning Change from RS‐6 to MU
AREA PLAN – Land ParcelsCity Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 12 of 44
Please call (325) 676-6237 if you have any questions about this notice.For the PLANNING & ZONINU UUMR,lIbslur’l
CASE #: Z-2018-27You may indicate your position on the above request by detaching this sheet at the dotted line and returning it to the address below.
You may attach additional sheets if needed. You may also fax or email your position to the fax number or email address also listed
below. All correspondence must include your name and address. Name: HOWELL TIM & REBECCAAddress: 1929 HARDY ST
MaIling To: Planning and Development ServicesP.O. Box 60, Abilene TX 79604-0060
____________________
I am in favor I am opposedAdditional Comments:
For the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONPlease call (325) 676-6237 if you have any questions about this notice.
CASE#: Z-2018-27You may indicate your position on the above request by detaching this sheet at the dotted line and returning it to the address below.
You may attach additional sheets if needed. You may also fax or email your position to the fax number or email address also listed
below. All correspondence must include your name and address. Name: HOWELL TIM & REBECCAAddress: 742 N 19TH ST
Planning and Development Services Fax #: (325) 676-6288
P.O. Box 60, Abilene TX 79604-0060
____________________
I am in favor LI I am opposed
Additional Comments:
____________________________________
For the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONPlease call (325) 676-6237 if you have any questions about this notice.
CASE It: Z-2018-27You may indicate your position on the above request by detaching this sheet at the dotted line and returning it to the address below.
You may attach additional sheets if needed. You may also fax or email your position to the fax number or email address also listed
below. All correspondence must include your name and address. Name: HOWELL REBECCA ANN GAddress: 742 N 19TH ST
Mailing To: Planning and Development Services
P.O. Box 60, Abilene TX 79604-0060
____________________
I am in favor Q I am opposed tElAdditional Comments:
Fax #: (325) 676-6288email: p1 n nqabilenetx.com
Sign . ,// /t—
Mailing To:mall p nnlnqabIlenetx.com
Fax 25) 676-6268
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 31 of 44
Owner: Hendrick Medical Center
Agent: Duane Martin
Request: Rezone seven now-vacant lots from Residential Single Family (RS-6) to Medical Use (MU)
Location: 1901, 1909, 1917, 1925, 1933, 1941, 1949 Walnut Street
Notification: 17 in favor, 5 opposed
Area of Opposition: 13.5% (Does not require a super majority)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
Z-2018-27
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 32 of 44
• The applicants are requesting to rezone seven now-vacant lots from Residential Single Family (RS-6) to Medical Use (MU)
• The subject property was annexed in 1911. This subject properties have been encompassed within a RS-6 zoning district since (at least) the current zoning map was adopted in 1974.
• The Medical Use (MU) zoning classification is intended to provide high quality medical-related development as well as create compatibility between medical-related uses and nearby residences.
Application ReviewZ-2018-27
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 33 of 44
• The Future Land Use Development Plan map indicates the subject property to be within a Special Activity Center, due to the proximity to Hendrick Medical Center and Hardin-Simmons University. The location of the subject properties, in proximity to Hendrick Medical Center, makes these seven lots a likely location for expansion.
Application ReviewZ-2018-27
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 34 of 44
Z-2018-27 Notification Map
17 - In Favor-
5 - Opposed-
Area of Notification: 320,654 sqftSubject Properties: 48,810 sqftArea of Opposition: 43,260 sqft13.5%
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 39 of 44
Z-2018-27 Views of Subject Property and Adjacent Properties
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 40 of 44
Existing Uses in RS Zoning
RESIDENTAL USES:C Bed & BreakfastC Dwelling – DuplexP Dwelling – Industrialized Housing UnitP Dwelling – Single-Family DetachedC Group Home
ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL USES:P Accessory Structure (Also see Division 4 of this article)P Antenna, Non-Commercial/AmateurP/C Day Care Operation – Home-BasedP Dwelling – AccessoryTP Field Office or Construction Office (temporary)P Garage SaleP Home OccupationC Mobile Home (temporary security residence)P Recreation Building, MultipurposeP Recreation Equipment, Mobile (storage & parking)TP Subdivision Sales Office (temporary)P Swimming Pool, Private (accessory to residential use)P Tennis Court, Private (accessory to residential use)P/SE Wind Energy Conversion Systems
CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL USES:C Civic, Social, and Fraternal OrganizationC Recreation – Outdoors (active)P Recreation – Outdoors (passive)
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE USES:P Community HomeP Fire/Police StationC Social Service Facility
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS USES:P Church or Place of WorshipP School: Public/Private
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UTILITIES:P Public Utility Facility
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION USES:P Petroleum or Gas WellP Urban Garden
LEGENDP Permitted as a Right-of-Use (may be subject to compliance with conditions described within Section 2.4.3 of the Land Development Code)C Permitted as a Conditional Use Permit, Requiring Approval by City CouncilTP Permitted by Temporary Permit Only, Requiring Approval by Board of Adjustment
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 42 of 44
Proposed Uses in MU Zoning
RESIDENTAL USES:P Dwelling – Industrialized Housing UnitP Dwelling – InstitutionalP Dwelling – Multiple-FamilyP Dwelling – Single-Family DetachedP Hotel/Motel
ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL USES:P Accessory Structure (Also see Division 4 of this article)P Antenna, Non-Commercial/AmateurP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesP/C Day Care Operation – Home-BasedTP Field Office or Construction Office (temporary)P Garage SaleP Home OccupationTP Mobile Home (temporary security residence)P Recreation Building, MultipurposeP Recreation Equipment Mobile (storage and parking)P Subdivision Sales Office (temporary)P Swimming Pool, Private (accessory to residential use)P Tennis Court, Private (accessory to residential use)P Travel Trailers (accessory to hospitals)P/SE Wind Energy Conversion Systems
CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL USES:P Civic, Social, and Fraternal OrganizationP Cultural FacilitiesP Recreation – Outdoors (passive)C Recreation – Outdoors (active)
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE USES:P Ambulance ServiceP Fire/Police StationP HospitalP Medical/Dental LaboratoryP Post OfficeP Rehabilitation FacilityP Social Service Facility
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS USES:P Church or Place of WorshipP Day-Care Operation - Center-BasedP Educational and Scientific ResearchP School: Public/PrivateC Trade/Business SchoolC University/College
SERVICEP Funeral Home/Mortuary/MorgueP Office (general, professional, financial)P Personal Services
TRADE – RETAIL USESP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesP/C Restaurant, Fast FoodP/C Restaurant, Standard
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UTILITIES:C Antenna Tower - CommercialP Automobile Parking Lot or Structure - CommercialP Broadcast StudioP Public Utility Facility
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION USES:P Petroleum or Gas WellP Urban Garden
LEGENDP Permitted as a Right-of-Use (may be subject to compliance with conditions described within Section 2.4.3 of the Land Development Code)C Permitted as a Conditional Use Permit, Requiring Approval by City CouncilTP Permitted by Temporary Permit Only, Requiring Approval by Board of Adjustment
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 43 of 44
• The subject property lies just one block west from Hendrick Medical Center (approx. 465’). The first 315’ of that separation is already embraced with a Medical Use (MU) zoning district. City staff contends that Medical Use zoning at the requested seven properties is an appropriate fit for the area and fits an ongoing trend of Hendrick Medical Center expansions.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
Staff CommentsZ-2018-27
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 15, Page 44 of 44
TO: Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Mr. Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director/Planning and Development Services
SUBJECT:
Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) Z-2018-28 A request from RichardWright to zone property from RS-6 (Single-Family Residential) to RS-6/H (Single-Family Residential/Historic Overlay) located at 842 Sayles Boulevard on northwestcorner of Idlewild Street and Sayles Blvd. (Zack Rainbow)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The applicant is requesting to apply Historic Overlay Zoning on their property.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Landmarks Commission recommends approval of the Historic Overlay zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval unanimously by six (6) with none in opposition.
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeOrdinance Cover OrdinanceOrdinance Exhibit ExhibitStaff Report Backup MaterialPowerPoint Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 1 of 20
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE, "LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE ABILENE CITY CODE, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AFFECTING CERTAIN PROPERTIES; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING;
PROVIDING A PENALTY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS: PART 1: That Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations) of the Land Development Code of the City
of Abilene, is hereby amended by changing the zoning district boundaries as set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 2: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense.
PART 3: That the Planning Director be, and is hereby authorized and directed to
change the official Zoning Map of the City of Abilene to correctly reflect the amendments thereto. PASSED ON FIRST READING the 27th day of _September A.D. 2018.
A notice of the time and place, where and when said ordinance would be given a public hearing
and considered for final passage, was published in the Abilene Reporter-News, a daily newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Abilene, said publication being on the 17th day of August, 2018, the
same being more than fifteen (15) days prior to a public hearing held in the Council Chamber of the City
Hall in Abilene, Texas, at 8:30 a.m. on the 9th day of October, 2018, to permit the public to be heard prior
to final consideration of this ordinance. Said ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten
(10) days after its publication in the newspaper, as provided by Section 19 of the Charter of the City of
Abilene.
PASSED ON FINAL READING THIS 9th day of October, A.D. 2018.
ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY SECRETARY MAYOR
APPROVED:
______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 2 of 20
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
EXHIBIT A
Rezone property from RS-6 (Single-Family Residential) to RS-6/H (Single-Family
Residential/Historic Overlay).
Legal description being Lot 7 and south half of Lot 6 in Block 7 of Highland Addition,
Abilene, Taylor County, Texas.
-END-
Location: 842 Sayles Boulevard
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 3 of 20
Case # Z-2018-28 September 10, 2018
1
Historic Overlay District CASE Z-2018-28 STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Historic Overlay Zoning
APPLICANT: Owner: Richard Wright
HEARING DATES: Landmarks Commission: July 24, 2018 P & Z Commission: September 4, 2018 City Council 1st Reading: September 27, 2018 City Council 2nd Reading: October 9, 2018
LOCATION: 842 Sayles Blvd., on the west side of Sayles Blvd., between Idlewild St. and South 8th St., consisting of .24 acres. Legal description being Lots 7 and half of 6, Block 7, Highland Addition, Taylor County, Texas.
PROPOSAL AND REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to apply Historic Overlay Zoning on their property.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Landmarks): The following sections of the City of Abilene Land Development Code apply to the Historic Overlay request:
Section 1.1.7.2 (b): Powers and Duties Section 2.3.4.4 (e): Procedure for Designation of Historic Overlay
APPLICATION REVIEW: In considering an application for a Historic Overlay designation, the Landmarks Commission shall be guided by the Land Development Code Section 2.3.4.4 (c). In order to be considered as a Landmark, the property must exhibit any one or more of the following characteristics: (1) Significance or value to the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or country. This significance can be in history, archeology, or culture. (2) Association with events or persons that have made a significant contribution to our past. (3) Embodiment of characteristics distinctive of a type, period, or method of construction or architecture, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. (4) Yielding, or may be likely to yield, historical information. (5) Unique location of singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or the community. (6) Represents the works of a master designer, architect, builder, or craftsman.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 4 of 20
Case # Z-2018-28 September 10, 2018
2
ANALYSIS: (Chapter 1, Article 4, Division 1, Section 1.4.1.4) Current Planning Analysis Currently, the property is developed with a house that was built in 1926 and is named Middleton-Young House. This structure finds itself on the Abilene Register of Historic Properties as well as the National Register of Historic Properties as a ‘District Contributor’. Comprehensive Planning Analysis (1) The Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as ‘Low Density Residential’. The neighborhood has been incorporated into city limits since at least 1895 with multiple historic properties in the area, some of which are as close as 75 feet. Existing Land Use Analysis (2)
Zoning Change Impact (3 & 4) This proposed zoning request should not have a negative impact on surrounding public schools, streets, water supply, sanitary sewers, and other public services or utilities. The subject property adjoins fully improved and paved streets. Staff feels the proposed rezoning and potential uses would not negatively affect the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the surrounding residents or property owner(s).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve the Historic Overlay request according to Section 2.3.4.4(e) of the Land Development Code. The building meets the minimum age requirement, and also embodies at least more than one of the required characteristics listed above.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Calk moved to approve this request as presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by six (6) with none in opposition. AYES: Rosenbaum, Smith, Bixby, Calk, Noonan, Famble NAYS: None
NOTIFICATION: The Planning Services Division sent, with certificate of mailing, public notices to the applicant and property owners within a 200-foot radius
OWNER SITUS RESPONSE ARRANT A G MRS 800 SAYLES BL ARRANT A G MRS 2125 S 8TH ST BELK SAMUEL 837 SAYLES BL BRATTON CONRAD C & LINDA E 809 SAYLES BL BURDITT FRANCES HORNE 2145 IDLEWILD ST COMER SHERRIE N 2041 S 8TH ST CRYMES INSTITUTE 845 SAYLES BL
Zoning Existing Land UseNorth RS-12 Residential Uses South RS-12 Residential Uses East RS-12 Residential Uses West RS-12 Residential Uses
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 5 of 20
Case # Z-2018-28 September 10, 2018
3
HARDIN SIMMONS UNIVERSITY 858 SAYLES BL JACK DENNIS E & TIFFANY S 2142 IDLEWILD ST SIMS LOUIS FRANKLIN & 2137 IDLEWILD ST SIMS RONALD M & ALLISON K 850 SAYLES BL TAYLOR CHARLES & DIANA 2141 S 8TH ST TAYLOR CHARLES & DIANA 817 HIGHLAND AV TAYLOR JACKIE 2137 S 8TH ST ULMER WILLIAM O & 840 SAYLES BL WRIGHT RICHARD A & CLAUDIA K 842 1/2 SAYLES BL WRIGHT RICHARD A & CLAUDIA K 842 SAYLES BL
LANDMARKS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Landmarks Commission approved the request at their July 24, 2018 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS: Application Zoning Map Aerial map Thoroughfare map Notification map Photographs of Property and Building
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 6 of 20
A Development ApplicationCITY or AOLEN[
Fee ScheduleFiling/Application FeesBoard of Adjustment $400ZoningZone Change Request/Conditional Use $1,500Planned Development District $2,000Planned Development District, Amendment $i,ooo
Site Plan $500Minor Site Plan $250Zoning Determination/Verification Letter $100Voluntary Annexation $600
./ Landmarks Commission Application $50Appeal to City Council $250Airport Zoning Permit $100Sidewalk Waiver or Deviation (Site Plan) $250Misc. Zoning-related Application1 $100SubdivisionPreliminary Development Plan $0Plat, Preliminary (the applicant will also be responsible for actual filing costs) $500+2
Plat, Final (the applicant will also be responsible for actual filing costs) $500+2
Plat, Minor (the applicant will also be responsible for actual filing costs) $500+2
Plat, Replat (the applicant will also be responsible for actual filing costs) $500+2
Easement Release $400Thoroughfare Abandonment (based on land value)Street Name Change (applicant also responsible for notification costs) $800Proportionality Appeal $500Sidewalk Waiver or Deviation (Plat) $250Sidewalk Deferral Agreement $100Misc. Subdivision-related Application1 $100Signs
______________________ _______________ _____
Sign Permit — Billboard (based on sign value) $500+Sign Permit — Non-Billboard5 (based on sign value) $200÷Sign Permit — Portable $50Other
_____
Itinerant Business Permit $100Misc. Other Permit/Application1 $100Documents & Maps
_____
Ordinances, Minutes See belowPublications, Reports, Other Documents See belowMaps See below
Notes::Misc. permit fee is for new permits/processes/applications established by ordinance to be applied until such time that a specific fee is established.2Plat fees are $500 for first 4 lots, plus $20 per lot thereafter. See RECORDING FEES for actual filing costs with Taylor County clerk’s Office.3Thoroughfare Abandonment Fee 10% of the calculated land value of the ROW area to be abandoned, based on the average square footage value ofadjacent properties, per the most recent official Appraisal District valuation. Minimum fee is $1,500. Any portion over the minimum fee is refundableif the abandonment is nat approved.4sign Permit Fee, other than for portable signs, is 2% of the sign value OR the minimum fee noted above, whichever is greater.5Multiple wall signs submitted as a single application will only be assessed one fee for all signs. However, each freestanding sign requires an individualpermit.
31 Page
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 7 of 20
Development Application•Jm1ui:
Conditional Use E Special Exceptions ‘2Oning D VarianceC POD Amendment C Street Name Change U Thoroughfare Abandonment U Easement ReleaseU Historic Certification of Appropriateness C Historic Project Tax Reduction
Lfl[flJ,aNv(Ttc %% ‘%
C Petition for Relief U Proportionality Appeal C Vested Rights Petition U AppealOther:
Legal Description:
Subdivision Name: ¾4 ‘IC-4 b\ L ‘3
Current Zoning: —
m AcO .tot-..a Block: —7.S3t ‘-,Ot....Th
Lot: L4.—F cv c__c,
Proposed Zoning (if applicable): h?’Pc.2’Vto ‘-a a’
(i-4N av134_.&y te)ka
OWNER AND AUT-Ij9RI4ATION
Owner Name:
_____________
Address: gqi kAtS NvM
City, State, Zip:
Phone: Email:
Fax:
I hereby certify that lam the owner of the property and further certify that the information provided on this development application is true andcorrect. I hereby designate the aforementioned agent to act on my behalf for submittal, processing, representation, and/or presentation of thisdevelopment application. 3edesinate agent shall b he rinci al contact person for responding to all requests for information and for resolvingall issues of concern relati)h thfl applilation
Signature Owner: 7 Date: /./z L/2o i g
CITY or Ae’LEHE
Address:
___________________
Project Name: I—4VTOc2_C. (i4 c 1aaJSy -1oaa
t_,ts? L—E i, No. of lots: \ /Z__ Acreage:_____________
City, State, Zip: ,4-.?7; )?IC•,.
Phone: VHAgent Name:
Address:
Email: f4bà njt
Fax:
Ck- a—toi 1 - Co—I
‘I /
Received:___________ Fee:SO ReceiptNo.: OO02_P’1 7 ?C..cCaseNo.: H01401&o2_ -- -. ReviewedBy:_ JR
11 p a g e
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 8 of 20
A Development ApplicationCNY OF AOJLCNL
RECOMMENDATIONSThe Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and the City Council look to the Planning & Development Services staffto make a recommendation for the approval or disapproval of this application. We will make every effort tonotify you (FAX or E-mail) of our recommendation at least one (1) week in advance of the scheduled meeting ofthe P&Z Commission. In the case of a rezoning, and when the public interest requires it, we may recommend arezoning to a Planned Development District (PDD) or a classification other than the classification requested. Wewill notify you of our decision to propose a PDD as soon as possible after the application is filed to give you timeto prepare a site plan.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The public is entitled to examine this application and participate in the decision-making process. In most cases,we are required to notify all property owners within two hundred feet (200’) of the boundaries of your property.To ensure the fullest possible consideration, we may also notify neighborhood groups, organizations orindividuals that have a special interest in a particular issue. Except for matters that the Planning & DevelopmentServices staff have expressly agreed not to disclose (and provided the law allows us to hold the matter inconfidence), then all information that we deem relevant to the review and processing of this application maybecome public knowledge.
PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING
The undersigned has read the above application and hereby certifies that the information contained therein iscomplete, true and correct; and does hereby request that said application be submitted to the Planning & ZoningCommission at the earliest available meeting.
I understand and acknowledge that it is my responsibility to furnish an accurate and precise legal description ofthe property, and only the property, that is subject of this application, and that failure to furnish suchinformation prior to the application deadline date will delay the processing of this application. I also understandthat the City must notify affected property owners of this application. In the event that I fail to submit in a timelymanner any information that the City deems necessary to transmit this application to the Planning & ZoningCommission or City Council, then in lieu of dismissal I hereby request that this application be temporarilywithdrawn from further consideration until such information is submitted, and I agree to pay a resubmissionfee of $120 to reimburse the City for the expense of re-notifying affected property owners. I have been informedof the tentative date and time that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council will hearthis application,and I understand that hearings may be continued from time to time at the discretion of the Commission orCouncil to allow for full consideration or whe the public interest requires a continuation.
SIGNED: DATE: 6/21/201
12 I P a g e
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 9 of 20
Owner: Richard Wright
Request: Historic Overlay
Location: 842 Sayles Boulevard
Notification: 0 in favor, 0 opposed
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
Z-2018-28
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 10 of 20
• Currently, the property is developed with a house that was built in 1926 and is named Middleton-Young House. This structure finds itself on the Abilene Register of Historic Properties as well as the National Register of Historic Properties as a ‘District Contributor’.
• The Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as ‘Low Density Residential’. The neighborhood has been incorporated into city limits since at least 1895 with multiple historic properties in the area, some of which are as close as 75 feet.
Application ReviewZ-2018-28
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 11 of 20
• (1) Significance or value to the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or country. This significance can be in history, archeology, or culture.
• (2) Association with events or persons that have made a significant contribution to our past.
• (3) Embodiment of characteristics distinctive of a type, period, or method of construction or architecture, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
• (4) Yielding, or may be likely to yield, historical information.
• (5) Unique location of singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or the community.
• (6) Represents the works of a master designer, architect, builder, or craftsman.
Requirements for Historic OverlayZ-2018-28
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 12 of 20
Z-2018-28 Notification Map
N0- In Favor-
0- Opposed-
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 17 of 20
Z-2018-28 Views of Subject Property and Adjacent Properties
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 18 of 20
• Staff recommends the Commission approve the Historic Overlay request according to Section 2.3.4.4(e) of the Land Development Code. The building meets the minimum age requirement, and also embodies at least more than one of the required characteristics listed above.
• Landmarks Commission recommended approval of the request on July 24th, 2018.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
Staff CommentsZ-2018-28
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16, Page 20 of 20
TO: Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Mr. Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director/Planning and Development Services
SUBJECT: Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) CUP-2018-04 A request from ChrisBaldree and Darlene Robinson for Conditional Use Permit to allow a ‘crematorium’ onproperty zoned Heavy Commercial (HC) located at 118 Ruidosa Drive (Zack Rainbow)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a crematorium in Heavy Commercial (HC)zoning.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit authorizes the use or development of the property in accordance withthe conditions of the permit. The City Council may require such modifications in the proposed use and attachsuch conditions to the Conditional Use Permit as it may deem necessary to mitigate adverse effects of theproposed use. The requirement for a site plan has been waived.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval by four (4) in favor with one (1) in opposition,and one (1) abstained.
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeOrdinance Cover OrdinanceOrdinance Exhibit Exhibit
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 1 of 26
Staff Report Backup MaterialSPO Responses Backup MaterialCUP Site Plan Waiver Letter Backup MaterialPowerPoint Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 2 of 26
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE, "LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE ABILENE CITY CODE, BY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) AFFECTING CERTAIN PROPERTY; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING;
PROVIDING A PENALTY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS: PART 1: That Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations) of the Land Development Code of the City
of Abilene, is hereby amended by approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 2: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense.
PART 3: That the Planning Director be, and is hereby authorized and directed to
change the official Zoning Map of the City of Abilene to correctly reflect the amendments thereto. PASSED ON FIRST READING the 27th day of _September A.D. 2018.
A notice of the time and place, where and when said ordinance would be given a public hearing
and considered for final passage, was published in the Abilene Reporter-News, a daily newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Abilene, said publication being on the 17th day of August, 2018, the
same being more than fifteen (15) days prior to a public hearing held in the Council Chamber of the City
Hall in Abilene, Texas, at 8:30 a.m. on the 9th day of October, 2018, to permit the public to be heard prior
to final consideration of this ordinance. Said ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten
(10) days after its publication in the newspaper, as provided by Section 19 of the Charter of the City of
Abilene.
PASSED ON FINAL READING THIS 9th day of October, A.D. 2018.
ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY SECRETARY MAYOR
APPROVED:
______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 3 of 26
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
EXHIBIT A
Approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a ‘Crematorium’ on property zoned
Heavy Commercial (HC).
Legal description being Tract 3 in the Wheat Subdivision, Abilene, Taylor County, Texas.
Location: 118 Ruidosa Drive
-END-
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 4 of 26
Case # CUP-2018-04 Updated: September 10, 2018
1
ZONING CASE CUP-2018-04 STAFF REPORT APPLICANT INFORMATION: Owner: Chris Baldree
HEARING DATES: P & Z Commission: September 4, 2018 City Council 1st Reading: September 27, 2018 City Council 2nd Reading: October 9, 2018 LOCATION: 118 Ruidosa Drive
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a crematorium in Heavy Commercial (HC) zoning.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property is a single lot having a total of .297 acres.
ZONING HISTORY: The subject property was annexed in 1957. The Heavy Commercial (HC) zoning classification of this property is believed to have existed since Abilene’s current zoning map was initially adopted in 1974. The existing structure was built during 1983-84. ANALYSIS: (Chapter 1, Article 4, Division 1, Section 1.4.1.4) Current Planning Analysis
The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the building on this property to be used as a ‘Crematorium’. Given the current structure of Abilene’s Land Development Code, any new use functioning as a cemetery, crematorium, or mausoleum would require a condition use permit to be approved by City Council. Crematoriums are now more likely to be freestanding, having no cemetery, mausoleum or even a funeral home attached.
Comprehensive Planning Analysis (1) The subject property lies within an area that is not only heavy commercial by zoning classifications, but also heavy commercial in its nature. Ruidosa Drive is a collector that feeds into both Steffens (a frontage road for South 1st) and South 7th Streets, both of which are arterial in nature. The subject property lies just 200’ from pavement on Steffens Street.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 5 of 26
Case # CUP-2018-04 Updated: September 10, 2018
2
Existing Land Use Analysis (2)
Zoning Change Impact (3 & 4) The subject property fronts Ruidosa Drive, which is a collector road that feeds two arterial roads. The subject property is also surrounded entirely by Heavy Commercial (HC) zoning. Given the location for the proposed use, there would not be a negative effect to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the surrounding residents or property owner(s). Any visible emission of heat or even smoke from the proposed crematorium will be much more acceptable in this particular environment than one closer to residences.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The location of the proposed crematorium is considered, by staff, to be an appropriate fit in this area primarily occupied by heavy commercial uses. Staff feels the Conditional Use Permit is appropriate and recommends approving this request, as presented. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Mr. Famble moved to approve this request as presented. Mr. Rosenbaum seconded the motion.
The motion carried by four (4) in favor with one (1) in opposition, and one (1) abstained. AYES: Rosenbaum, Bixby, Noonan, Famble NAYS: Smith ABSTAINED: Calk
NOTIFICATION: The Planning Services Division sent, with certificate of mailing, public notices to the applicant and property owners within a 200-foot radius
OWNER SITUS RESPONSE 125 RUIDOSA I LP 125 RUIDOSA DR Opposed ABERNATHY JEFFREY DBA 5465 S 1ST ST ABILENE AUTO GLASS INC 5473 S 1ST ST ENRIQUEZ PORFIRIO VARGAS 5549 S 1ST ST GAMEZ JOE 5501 S 1ST ST GAMEZ JOE 104 RUIDOSA DR GARNER WILLIAM C JR 133 RUIDOSA DR HAWKINS AIR CONDITIONING 117 RUIDOSA DR Opposed M G THORNTON PROPERTIES LLC 150 RUIDOSA DR M G THORNTON PROPERTIES LLC 130 RUIDOSA DR M G THORNTON PROPERTIES LLC 136 RUIDOSA DR M G THORNTON PROPERTIES LLC 166 RUIDOSA DR
Location Zoning Existing Land Use North HC Herb Pittman Auto South HC/LI Clean, Inc East HC ABC Tent & Party Rental West HC Storage Yard
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 6 of 26
Case # CUP-2018-04 Updated: September 10, 2018
3
M G THORNTON PROPERTIES LLC 134 RUIDOSA DR M G THORNTON PROPERTIES LLC 138 RUIDOSA DR M G THORNTON PROPERTIES LLC 132 RUIDOSA DR ROBISON STEPHEN E & DARLENE A 120 RUIDOSA DR ROBISON STEPHEN E & DARLENE A 118 RUIDOSA DR
ATTACHMENTS: Application Zoning Map Existing Land Use Map Existing Land Use Study Aerial Map Thoroughfare Map Notification Map Parcel Photographs SPO Responses
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 7 of 26
Case # CUP-2018-04 Updated: August 13, 2018
3
ATTACHMENTS: Application Zoning Map Existing Land Use Map Existing Land Use Study Aerial Map Thoroughfare Map Notification Map Parcel Photographs SPO Responses
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 8 of 26
A\\\\ Development ApplicationCITY OF ABILENE
r-a
E”Eonditional Use U Special Exceptions U Rezoning U Variance
U POD Amendment U Street Name Change U Thoroughfare Abandonment U Easement Release
U Historic Certification of Appropriateness U Historic Project Tax Reduction
4 “_%- at
U Petition for Relief U Proportionality Appeal C Vested Rights Petition U AppealOther:
Project Name: Pd-cf Svvi(c3 e ‘1- Texc.s/
Address: ,‘ S %UIJ 5O e No. of lots: Acreage:‘
LegalDescription: 40C3 I vj- JJ&5 4’ F 7-”cJ 3 J
Subdivision Name: Block: Lot:
Current Zoning: VIA1 & iAwt€-v-c? / Proposed Zoning (if applicable): —
OWNER AND AUTHORIZATION
OwnerName: C/n5 Sa/Ivee t”X&the. j’t’0 L21 %DpJ
Address: 1/9 4 ,C.;d0s 14Je /862- ttkscocQ
City, State, Zip: , 7 ?9h oc Fax:1T$ ‘? 6° 3
phoneC73?Y 69 Email: rlLv. tJ0L_e& yLav.Agent Name: ( L,rs ,- /c7pp
Address:
City, State, Zip: Fax:
Phone: Email:
I hereby certify that I am the owner of the property and further certify that the information provided on this development application is true andcorrect. I hereby designate the afor entioned agen to act on my behalf for submittal processing representation, and/or presentation of this
ests for informatio and for resolvingdevelopment aPPlnt.i m de tetshalthe principal contact oerson for responding to all requ /1all issues of concer
Signature Owner
___________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Received: 7/lj 24/4 Fee: $ 1500 Receipt No.: o39897CaseNo.: I.uP40io RcviewedBy: -
11 I P a g e
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 9 of 26
A Development ApplicationCITY Or ABILENE
RECOMMENDATIONSThe Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and the City Council look to the Planning & Development Services staffto make a recommendation for the approval or disapproval of this application. We will make every effort tonotify you (FAX or E-mail) of our recommendation at least one (1) week in advance of the scheduled meeting ofthe P&Z Commission. In the case of a rezoning, and when the public interest requires it, we may recommend arezoning to a Planned Development District (PDD) or a classification other than the classification requested. Wewill notify you of our decision to propose a POD as soon as possible after the application is filed to give you timeto prepare a site plan.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The public is entitled to examine this application and participate in the decision-making process. In most cases,we are required to notify all property owners within two hundred feet (200’) of the boundaries of your property.To ensure the fullest possible consideration, we may also notify neighborhood groups, organizations orindividuals that have a special interest in a particular issue. Except for matters that the Planning & DevelopmentServices staff have expressly agreed not to disclose (and provided the law allows us to hold the matter inconfidence), then all information that we deem relevant to the review and processing of this application maybecome public knowledge.
PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING
The undersigned has read the above application and hereby certifies that the information contained therein iscomplete, true and correct; and does hereby request that said application be submitted to the Planning & ZoningCommission at the earliest available meeting.
I understand and acknowledge that it is my responsibility to furnish an accurate and precise legal description ofthe property, and only the property, that is subject of this application, and that failure to furnish suchinformation prior to the application deadline date will delay the processing of this application. I also understandthat the City must notify affected property owners of this application. In the event that I fail to submit in a timelymanner any information that the City deems necessary to transmit this application to the Planning & ZoningCommission or City Council, then in lieu of dismissal I hereby request that this application be temporarily
withdrawn from further consideration until such information is submitted, and I agree to pay a resubmissionfee of $120 to reimburse the City for the expense of re-notifying affected property owners. I have been informedof the tentative date and time that the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council will hear this application,
and I understand that hearings may be continued from time to time at the discretion of the Commission orCouncil to allow for full consideration or when the public interest requires a continuation.
SIGNED:
_____________________________________
DATE:
_______________________
(Revied: 060110)(Fees: 10.01.081
12 I P a g e
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 10 of 26
i\\\\ Development ApplicationCITY OF ARLENE
ZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS
Please answer these questions in order to assist Staff with the processing of your Zoning request.
1. Is the proposed zoning map amendment implements the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, includingthe land use classification of the property on the Future Land Use and Development Plan map, as amended?
2. Is the uses permitted by the proposed change in zoning district classification and the standards applicable to suchuses will be appropriate in the immediate area of the land to be reclassified?
___
n—A 5erIe (cn\pc-nj! £1bvA)s,
CY +Ippt )bLS M’ &es.n! J9U1711C --
___ ____ ______
3. Is the proposed change is in accord with any existing or proposed plans for providing public schools, streets, watersupply, sanitary sewers, and other public services and utilities to the area?
4. Are there other factors which will substantially affect the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare?
61 Page
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 11 of 26
/%\\N.ABiLENE Rainbow, Zack <zack.rainbowabiIenetx.gov>
CUP Application
Rainbow, Zack <zack.rainbowabilenetx.gov> Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:25 AMTo: chris.baldree@yahoo.com
Good Morning,
I received you application for a Conditional Use Permit for a crematorium from Hayden. III be happy to helpyou through the process. The application fee is $1500. You can get this to me anytime before theSeptember 4th, Planning & Zoning Meeting. If you have any questions please feel free to let me know.
Thanks,
CITY OF ABILENE
Zack RainbowInterim Assistant Director
Planning & Development ServicesPhysical Address: 555 Walnut Street, Suite 110Abilene, Texas 79601-5254Mailing Address: Post Office Box 60Abilene, Texas 79604-0060(325) 676-6234 (Office)
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 12 of 26
3256928508 PAULJOHNSON REALTORS PAULJOHNSON REALTORS 04:30:53 p.m. 08—272018 1/1
CITY or ABILENE
PLANNING & ftDEVELOPMENT CSERVICES
AQ62‘20,8125 RUIDOSA I LP NtqjAI4633S14THST
ABILENE, TX 79605-4734
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: Rezoning Application Number CUP-2018-04 0812412018The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 41h,2018 at 1:30 PM, in City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall, N. 5’ and Walnut Streets, torecommend approval or denial to City Council on a request from Chris Baidree and DarleneRobinson, for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a ‘crematorium’ on property zoned HeavyCommercial (I-IC). Legal description being Tract 3 in the Wheat Subdivision and located at 118Ruidosa Drive.
This hearing is open to any interested person. Opinions, objections andlor comments relative tothis matter may be expressed in writing or in person at the hearing. At the bottom of this letter isa form that you may cut off, fill out, and mail. Comments are also accepted by email or fax aslisted below. All responses must be signed.
The attached map shows the area of the request. Only that area which is bounded by the cross-hatched line on the map is being considered for rezoning. The solid boundary line around thesubject area is only a notification area. If approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission or ifdenied and appealed to Abilene’s City Council within the specified ten-day period, this case willbe heard by City Council for 2m1 and Final Reading with a public hearing on October 9th, 2018, at8:30 a.m. in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. 555 Walnut Street.If you have any questions, please contact Zack Rainbow, Interim Assistant Director of PlanningServices at (325) 676-6237 or zackrainbow(äabiIenetx.aov
For the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONPlease call (325) 676-6237 If you have any questions about this notice.CASE#: CUP-201644You may indicate your position on the above request by detaching this sheet at the dotted line and returning It to the address below.You may attach additional sheets if needed. You may also fax or email your position to the fax number or email address also listedbelow. All correspondence must include your name and address. Name: 125 RUIDOSA I LP
Address: 125 RUIDOSA DRMailing To: PlannIng and Development Services Fax #: (325) 676-8288P.O. Box 60, Abilene TX 79604-0060 email: iannrngbienetx.comI am in favor Q I am oPPosed
______________________________
Additional Comments: Signature:
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 13 of 26
Zoning Case CUP-2018-04 Site Plan Waiver
The Assistant Planning Director, for the following reasons, hereby waives the ordinaryrequirement for a site plan to be presented and considered concurrent with approval of arequested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a ‘crematorium’ on property zoned HeavyCommercial (HC). Legal description being Tract 3 in the Wheat Subdivision and located at 118Ruidosa Drive, said location being the subject site of Zoning Case CUP-201 8-04:
• The location is currently zoned Heavy Commercial (HC). An existing, 2500 sq. ft.commercial/office building is existing on this site.
• If allowed by CUP, the applicant is proposing to use the existing building as a‘crematorium’. No additional significant expansions, requiring a Site Plan, to the existingbuilding are planned at this time. Unless such standards or conditions are modifiedby City Council in its approval of the requested CUP, the Assistant Director ofPlanning has waived the site plan requirement set out in LDC Section 1.4.3.3(b).
Zack RainbowAssistant Director,Planning & Development Services
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 15 of 26
Owner: Chris Baldree
Request: Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a crematorium in Heavy Commercial (HC) zoning.
Location: 118B Ruidosa Ave
Notification (as of this morning): 0 in favor, 2opposed (11.3% in opposition- does not require a super majority)
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing the ‘Crematorium’ at this location.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
CUP-2018-04
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 16 of 26
• The proponents are seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on this property, specifically to allow a ‘crematorium’
• Given the current structure of our Land Development Code, any use as a cemetery, crematorium, or mausoleum would require a condition use permit.
• The subject property lies within an area that is not only heavy commercial by zoning classifications, but also heavy commercial in its nature. Ruidosa Drive is a collector that feeds into both Steffens (a frontage for South 1st) and South 7th, both of which are arterial in nature.
Application ReviewCUP-2018-04
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 17 of 26
CUP-2018-04 Notification Map
0 In Favor=2 Opposed=
As of 8/1/18
11.3% in opposition- does not require a super majority
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 22 of 26
CUP-2018-04 Views of Subject Property and Adjacent Properties
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 23 of 26
Proposed Uses in HC ZoningRESIDENTAL USES:
C Hotel/Motel
ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL USES:P Accessory Structure (Also see Division 4 of this article)P Antenna, Non-Commercial/AmateurP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesP Drive-Through FacilityTP Field Office or Construction Office (temporary)P Freight ContainerP Fuel SalesTP Itinerant BusinessP Manufacturing (incidental)C Mobile Home (permanent security residence)TP Mobile Home (temporary security residence)P Mobile Home or Temporary Building (office for sales and service)P Recycling Collection PointC Travel Trailers (accessory to hospitals)P/SE Wind Energy Conversion Systems
CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL USES:C Adult Entertainment EnterpriseP Civic, Social, and Fraternal OrganizationP Cultural FacilitiesP Drive-in TheaterC Motorized RacingP Recreation – Outdoors (active)P Recreation – Outdoors (passive)P Recreation and Commercial Entertainment - Indoor
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE USES:P Ambulance ServiceC Correction, Detention, or Penal FacilitiesP Fire/Police StationP Homeless/Emergency ShelterP HospitalP Medical/Dental LaboratoryP Military and Armed Forces Reserve CenterP Post OfficeP Rehabilitation FacilityC Sanitary LandfillP Social Service Facility
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS USES:P Arts SchoolC Cemetery, Crematorium, and MausoleumP Church or Place of WorshipP Educational and Scientific ResearchP School: Public/PrivateP Trade/Business School
SERVICEP/C Automobile WashP Contractor ServicesP Funeral Home/ Mortuary/MorgueP Kennel (With Outdoor Pens)P Kennel (Without Outdoor Pens)P Laundry, Dry Cleaning, Dyeing, and Linen Service (no retail customers)P Laundry/Dry Cleaning Services & FacilitiesP Office (general, professional, financial)P Printing, Copying, Reproduction, PublishingP Recycling Collection and Processing CenterP Repair and Maintenance Services - Automobile/Small Truck (major)P Repair and Maintenance Services - Automobile/Small Truck (minor)P Repair and Maintenance Services (indoor)P Repair and Maintenance Services (outdoors)P Repair and Maintenance Services (truck and other large vehicles)P Scales (public)P Storage - Self-Service UnitsP Tattoo ParlorP TaxidermistP Veterinary Service (all size animals)P Veterinary Service (small animals)P Wrecker/Towing
TRADE – RETAIL USESP Aircraft and AccessoriesP ATM’s, Self-Serve Kiosks, and Similar FacilitiesP Fuel SalesP Head ShopP Liquor Store (Off Premises Consumption) (Defined under Liquor Store)
P Liquor Store (On Premises Consumption) (Defined under Liquor Store)
P Restaurant, Fast FoodP Restaurant, StandardP Retail Sales/Rental (automobile/small truck)P Retail Sales/Rental (indoor)P Retail Sales/Rental (outdoors, non-vehicle)P Retail Sales/Rental (trucks and other large vehicles and equipment)
TRADE – WHOLESALE USESP Liquor, Wholesale/DistributionP Wholesaling and Storage (indoor)C Wholesaling and Storage (outdoors)
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UTILITIES:P Airport, Heliport and Flying Field Terminals - Commercial (passenger and freight)C Antenna Tower - CommercialP Automobile Parking Lot or Structure - CommercialP Broadcast StudioP Passenger Ground Transportation TerminalP Pressure Control StationP Public Utility FacilityC Utility Generation, Production, Treatment
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION USES:P Petroleum or Gas WellC Manufacturing (light)P Urban Garden
LEGENDP Permitted as a Right-of-Use (may be subject to compliance with conditions described
within Section 2.4.3 of the Land Development Code)C Permitted as a Conditional Use Permit, Requiring Approval by City CouncilTP Permitted by Temporary Permit Only, Requiring Approval by Board of AdjustmentCity Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 25 of 26
• The location of the proposed crematorium is considered, by staff, to be an appropriate fit in this area primarily occupied by heavy commercial uses. Staff feels the Conditional Use Permit is appropriate and recommends approving this request, as presented.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
Staff Recommendation
CUP-2018-04
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Page 26 of 26
TO: Mr. Robert Hanna, City Manager
FROM: Mr. Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director/Planning and Development Services
SUBJECT:
Ordinance & Public Hearing: (Final Reading) OAM-2018-04 Amendments to Section2.4.2.1 (The Land Use Matrix), Section 2.4.3.3 (All Other Uses With SpecificRequirements) and Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) of Abilene’s LandDevelopment Code, specifically to include a category of use identified as ‘brew pub’which is separate and distinct from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages and whichwill be allowed at all locations allowing a standard restaurant (and subject to the sameconditions) (Zack Rainbow)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
Amending the Land Development Code regarding Section 2.4.2.1 (The Land Use Matrix), Section 2.4.3.3 (AllOther Uses With Specific Requirements) and Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) of Abilene’s LandDevelopment Code, specifically to include a category of use identified as ‘brew pub’ which is separate anddistinct from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages and which will be allowed at all locations allowing astandard restaurant (and subject to the same conditions).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approving proposed amendments to Abilene’s Land Development Code, as presented.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval unanimously with six (6) in favor and none inopposition.
ATTACHMENTS:Description Type
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 1 of 19
Ordinance OrdinanceMemo Cover MemoDraft LDC Amendments - Rev Backup MaterialChapter 74 TABC Backup MaterialPowerPoint Presentation
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 2 of 19
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE, "LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE ABILENE CITY CODE, BY INCLUDING A CATEGORY OF USE
IDENTIFIED AS A “RESTAURANT, BREWPUB” WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM
OTHER MANUFACTURE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND WHICH IS ALLOWED AT ALL
LOCATIONS (AND SUBJECT TO MOST CONDITIONS) AS THOSE GENERALLY ALLOWING A
“RESTAURANT, STANDARD”; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING; PROVIDING A PENALTY AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS: PART 1: That Section 5.1.1.3(a) of Land Use Definitions in the City of Abilene’s Land
Development Code is hereby amended by adding a definition for the term “Restaurant, Brewpub” in alphabetical order and which reads specifically as follows:
RESTAURANT, BREWPUB: {x} Any establishment defined by all the following characteristics:
a. a principal business is selling food and beverages to customers in a ready-to-consume state, and where customers (normally provided with an individual menu) are served food and beverages by a restaurant employee at same table or counter where said items are consumed, or in a cafeteria-type operation where food and beverages generally are consumed within the restaurant building; and
b. where the holder of a brewpub license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and specifically for those premises may manufacture, brew, bottle, can, package and label malt liquor, ale or beer; and
c. where the holder of that brewpub license may sell or offer without charge, on the premises of the brewpub and to ultimate consumers for consumption on or off those premises, malt liquor, ale or beer produced by the holder, in or from a lawful container, to the extent the sales or offers are allowed under the holder’s other permits or licenses from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
PART 2: That Section 5.1.1.3(a)(100)d of Land Use Definitions in the City of Abilene’s Land
Development Code is hereby amended by deleting the present definition of Liquor Store Off-Premises Consumption Manufacturer and inserting the following new definition thereof:
d. Liquor Store Off-Premises Consumption Manufacturer means an establishment conducting or having a license allowing the manufacturing of alcohol, except as may be allowed by the holder of a brewpub license (from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) and at a Restaurant, Brewpub as defined herein this code.
PART 3: That Section 2.4.2.1(a) being The Land Use Matrix of the City of Abilene’s Land Development Code is hereby amended by an adding a new category of PERMITTED USE identified as “RESTAURANT, BREWPUB” alphabetically underneath the subheading of Trade-Retail Use and which furthermore is identified as Permitted (P) only in the following zoning classifications: NR, GR, CB, MX, GC and HC Districts.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 3 of 19
PART 4: That Section 2.4.3.3(a)(33) of the City of Abilene’s Land Development Code, which addresses specific requirements for LIQUOR STORES (on-premises consumption), is hereby amended by deleting existing paragraph e therein and inserting the following new paragraph e:
e. Use in Conjunction with a Standard or Brewpub Restaurant. A liquor store on-premise consumption use that, but for the sale of alcohol, may be classified as a standard restaurant or a brewpub restaurant shall not be subject to separation requirements ordinarily required thereof and pertaining to residential or College-University districts, churches, or hospitals, if such restaurant meets the following requirements:
1. Valid Food and Beverage Certificate. The restaurant shall hold a valid Food and Beverage Certificate from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and said certificate is prominently displayed. If a requirement for obtaining said certificate shall differ from any other condition of this paragraph e, then the more restrictive requirement or condition shall apply.
2. Alcohol Sales Percentage. Alcohol sales constitute no more than fifty percent (50%) of the gross receipts of the premises.
3. Kitchen and Entrees. The restaurant shall include a full-service kitchen offering a minimum of eight entrees.
4. Entrees and Alcohol for Sale. The restaurant shall offer the entrees for sale at all times that alcohol is offered for sale.
5. Performance Standards. The restaurant shall meet the performance standards enumerated in Chapter 4, Article 2, Division 9; and
6. Other Provisions. The restaurant meets all other provisions of this LDC.
PART 4: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense.
PASSED ON FIRST READING the 27th day of September, A.D. 2018.
A notice of the time and place, where and when said ordinance would be given a public hearing
and considered for final passage, was published in the Abilene Reporter-News, a daily newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Abilene, said publication being on the 17th day of August, 2018, the
same being more than fifteen (15) days prior to a public hearing to be held in the Council Chamber of the
City Hall in Abilene, Texas, at 8:30 a.m., on the 9th day of October, 2018 to permit the public to be heard
prior to final consideration of this ordinance. Said ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective
ten (10) days after its publication in the newspaper, as provided by Section 19 of the Charter of the City
of Abilene.
PASSED ON FINAL READING THIS 9th day of October, A.D. 2018.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 4 of 19
ATTEST: _______________________________________ CITY SECRETARY MAYOR
APPROVED: _______________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 5 of 19
CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS
M E M O R A N D U M
September 5, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Zack Rainbow, Assistant Director of Planning and Development
Services SUBJECT: Amending the Land Development Code regarding Section 2.4.2.1
(The Land Use Matrix), Section 2.4.3.3 (All Other Uses With Specific Requirements) and Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) of Abilene’s Land Development Code, specifically to include a category of use identified as ‘brew pub’ which is separate and distinct from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages and which will be allowed at all locations (and subject to same conditions) as those generally allowing a standard restaurant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City staff in the Planning Services Division have received many inquiries and applications for new businesses that fall under the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission’s (TABC) definition of a “brewpub”. These are allowed in conjunction with standard restaurants as defined by TABC. A limited amount of ‘light manufacturing’ and distribution of alcohol are also allowed with a “brewpub’ license. The first alteration in Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) of the City of Abilene’s Land Development Code is hereby amended by adding a definition for the term “Restaurant, Brewpub” in alphabetical order and which reads specifically as follows: RESTAURANT, BREWPUB: Any establishment defined by all the following characteristics:
a. a principal business is selling food and beverages to customers in a ready-to-consume state, and where customers (normally provided with an individual menu) are served food and beverages by a restaurant employee at same table or counter where said items are consumed, or in a cafeteria-type operation where food and beverages generally are consumed within the restaurant building; and
b. where the holder of a brewpub license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and specifically for those premises may manufacture, brew, bottle, can, package and label malt liquor, ale or beer; and
c. where the holder of that brewpub license may sell or offer without charge, on the premises of the brewpub and to ultimate consumers for consumption on or off those premises, malt liquor, ale or beer produced by the holder, in or from a lawful container, to the extent the sales or offers are allowed under the holder’s other permits or licenses from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 6 of 19
A business establishment defined as such a “brewpub” is proposed to be allowed in all six zoning classifications where standard restaurants are generally allowed without extraordinary conditions:*
Neighborhood Retail (NR), General Retail (GR), Central Business (CB), Mixed Use (MX), General Commercial (GC) and Heavy Commercial (HC).
The above definition includes a stipulation for standard restaurant food service to be available at a brewpub. This is also part of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s definition of a brewpub. If a brewpub establishment also holds a “Food and Beverage Certificate” from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, with alcoholic beverage sales comprising less than 50% of gross receipts, then such brewpub would not be subject to ordinary requirements for separating “liquor stores for on-premise consumption” from residential and College University zoning districts as well as from churches, schools and hospitals. Otherwise, even a brewpub must meet such separation requirements. In the absence of proposed amendments to Abilene’s Land Development Code, then any manufacture of alcoholic beverages (including craft manufacture of beer and ale) must be restricted to industrial zoning districts only. And so long as restaurants remain prohibited from industrial zoning districts, then any “brewpub” as defined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission† is effectively prohibited from Abilene altogether. The fundamental aim or intent of these proposed amendments is to categorically distinguish “brewpubs” from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages.
Sections in the Land Development Code being considered for possible amendment include Section 2.4.2.1, Section 2.4.3.3 and Section 5.1.1.3.
Staff recommendation City staff recommends approving proposed amendments to Abilene’s Land Development Code, as presented. Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation At a meeting on September 4 of 2018, Abilene’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 (in favor) to 0 (opposed) to recommend approving these proposed amendments, as presented.
* Standard restaurants are also allowed in Medical Use (MU), Office (O), Neighborhood Office (NO) and College
University (CU) zoning districts, but only if part of a larger structure such as an office building or hospital, and only if comprising no more than 10% of floor area in such structure. Brewpubs are not proposed to be allowed in any of these four zoning classifications.
† which includes a condition for standard restaurant food service to be available therein
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 7 of 19
Section 2.4.2.1 The Land Use Matrix
Land Development Code Chapter 2 : Zoning Regulations Article 5 : Use Regulations
LEGEND: P-Permitted, Blank-Not Permitted, C-Conditional Use Permit, TP-Requires a Temporary Permit,Conditions Apply See Ch.2 Art.5 Div.3
Permitted Uses
Agric
ultu
ral O
pen
Ru
ral
Resid
entia
l Re
siden
tial S
ingl
e-Re
siden
tial S
ingl
e-Fa
mily
Re
siden
tial
Resid
entia
l M
ediu
m Re
siden
tial M
ulti-
Man
ufac
ture
d/
Mob
ile
Colle
ge &
Uni
vers
ity
Ne
ighb
orho
od O
ffice
Offi
c
Neig
hbor
hood
Ret
ail
Ge
nera
l Ret
ail
M
edic
al U
se
Ce
ntra
l Bus
ines
s
Mix
ed U
se
Ge
nera
l Com
mer
cial
Heav
y Co
mm
erci
al
Li
ght I
ndus
tria
l
Heav
y I n
dust
rial
Parking Requirements (also referto Chapter 4,
Article 2
AO
RR
RS PH
TH
MD
MF MH CU NO O NR GR MU CB MX
GC
HC
LI
HI
Trade-Retail Uses
Restaurant-Brewpub (Add)
P
P
P P
P P
Sect ion 2 .4.3 .3 R e s t a u r a n t / Brewpub
e. Use in Conjunction with a Standard Restaurant add: or Brewpub Restaurant. A liquor store on-premise consumption use that, but for the sale of alcohol, may be classified as a standard restaurant shall not be subject to the separation requirements of this Section 2.5.3.14 [this Subsection (33)] pertaining to residential or College-University districts, churches, or hospitals if it meets the following requirements:
1. Valid Food and Beverage Certificate. The restaurant shall hold a valid Food and Beverage Certificate from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and said certificate is prominently displayed. If a requirement for obtaining said certificate shall differ from any other condition of this paragraph (e), then the more restrictive requirement or condition shall apply;
2. Alcohol Sales Percentage. Alcohol sales constitute no more than fifty percent (50%) of the gross receipts of the premises;
3. Kitchen and Entrees. The restaurant shall include a full-service kitchen offering a minimum of eight entrees;
4. Entrees and Alcohol for Sale. The restaurant shall offer the entrees for sale at all times that alcohol is offered for sale;
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 9 of 19
Delete:
5. Signage. the restaurant shall not display in a manner visible from outside the structure any signage depicting the name of any alcohol beverage manufacturer or brand name, nor any reference to a type of alcoholic beverage, including but not limited to beer, wine, spirits, alcohol, liquor and whiskey. Provided, that any such name or reference that is integral to a food specialty prepared at the restaurant may be depicted;
Section 5.1.1.3 Land Use Definitions
(100) LIQUOR STORE: {x} Any entity selling alcohol or required to be licensed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and which may be classified as one of the following:
Delete:
d. Liquor Store Off-Premises Consumption Manufacturer means an establishment conducting, or having a license allowing, the manufacturing of alcohol.
Add:
d. Liquor Store Off-Premises Consumption Manufacturer means an establishment conducting or having a license allowing the manufacturing of alcohol, except as may be allowed by the holder of a brewpub license (from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) and at a Restaurant, Brewpub as defined herein this code.
Add:
(154) RESTAURANT, BREWPUB: {x} Any establishment defined by all the following characteristics:
a. the principal business is selling food and beverages to customers in a ready-to-consume state, and where customers (normally provided with an individual menu) are served food and beverages by a restaurant employee at same table or counter where said items are consumed, or in a cafeteria-type operation where food and beverages generally are consumed within the restaurant building; and
b. where the holder of a brewpub license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and specifically for those premises may manufacture, brew, bottle, can, package and label malt liquor, ale or beer; and
c. where the holder of that brewpub license may sell or offer without charge, on the premises of the brewpub and to ultimate consumers for consumption on or off those premises, malt liquor, ale or beer produced by the holder, in or from a lawful container, to the extent the sales or offers are allowed under the holder’s other permits or licenses from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 10 of 19
TABC Definition of Brewpub License
CHAPTER 74. BREWPUB LICENSE
Sec. 74.01. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES. (a) A holder of a brewpub license for a brewpub located in a wet
area, as that term is described by Section 251.71 of this code, may:
(1) manufacture, brew, bottle, can, package, and label malt liquor, ale, and beer;
(2) sell or offer without charge, on the premises of the brewpub, to ultimate consumers for
consumption on or off those premises, malt liquor, ale, or beer produced by the holder, in or from a lawful
container, to the extent the sales or offers are allowed under the holder's other permits or licenses; and
(3) sell food on the premises of the holder's breweries.
(b) The holder of a brewpub license may establish, operate, or maintain one or more licensed
brewpubs in this state under the same general management or ownership. The holder shall pay the fee
assessed by the commission for each establishment. For the purposes of this subsection, two or more
establishments are under the same general management or ownership if:
(1) the establishments bottle the same brand of malt liquor, beer, or ale or bottle malt liquor, beer, or
ale brewed by the same manufacturer; or
(2) the person, regardless of domicile, who establishes, operates, or maintains the establishments is
controlled or directed by one management or by an association of ultimate management. (c) A holder
of a brewpub license must also hold a wine and beer retailer's permit, a mixed
beverage permit, or a retail dealer's on-premise license.
(d) The holder of a brewpub license may not hold or have an interest either directly or indirectly, or
through a subsidiary, affiliate, agent, employee, officer, director, or other person, in a manufacturer's or
distributor's license or any other license or permit in the manufacturing or wholesaling levels of the
alcoholic beverage industry regardless of the specific names given to permits or licenses in Title 3 of this
code. The holder shall be considered a "retailer" for purposes of Section 102.01 of this code.
(e) A holder of a retail dealer's on-premise license who obtains a brewpub license may not
manufacture, brew, bottle, can, package, label, sell, or offer without charge malt liquor or ale.
(f) A holder of a brewpub license may not sell an alcoholic beverage for resale.
(g) The holder of a brewpub license may deliver malt liquor, ale, or beer manufactured by the holder to
a location other than the holder's premises for the purpose of submitting the malt liquor, ale, or beer for
an evaluation at an organized malt liquor, ale, or beer tasting, competition, or review. At a tasting,
competition, or review, a holder of a brewpub license may:
(1) dispense without charge malt liquor, ale, or beer manufactured by the holder to a person attending
the event for consumption on the premises of the event; and
(2) discuss with a person attending the event the manufacturing and characteristics of the malt liquor,
ale, or beer.
Sec. 74.02. FEE. The annual state fee for a brewpub license is $500.
Sec. 74.03. PRODUCTION LIMIT. The total annual production of malt liquor, ale, and beer by
a holder of a brewpub license may not exceed 5,000 barrels for each licensed brewpub established
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 11 of 19
Ordinance Amendment OAM-2018-04
Amending Section 2.4.2.1 (The Land Use Matrix), Section 2.4.3.3 (All Other Uses With Specific Requirements) and Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) of Abilene’s Land Development Code, specifically to include a category of use identified as ‘brewpub’ which is separate and distinct from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages and which will be allowed at all locations (and subject to same conditions) as those allowing a standard restaurant.’
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Amending the Land Development Code regarding Section 2.4.2.1 and Section 2.4.3.3 in pertaining to ‘All Other Uses With Specific Requirements’ and Section 5.1.1.3 ‘Land Use Definitions ’ to allow for the use of ‘Brewpubs’ in conjunction with ‘Standard Restaurant’.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 12 of 19
Proposed Amendments
Amending Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) Adding a definition for the term “Restaurant, Brewpub”
RESTAURANT, BREWPUB: Any establishment defined by all the following characteristics:
a. the principal business is selling food and beverages to customers in a ready-to-consume state, andwhere customers (normally provided with an individual menu) are served food and beverages bya restaurant employee at same table or counter where said items are consumed, or in a cafeteria-type operation where food and beverages generally are consumed within the restaurant building;and
a. where the holder of a brewpub license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission andspecifically for those premises may manufacture, brew, bottle, can, package and label malt liquor,ale or beer; and
a. where the holder of that brewpub license may sell or offer without charge, on the premises of thebrewpub and to ultimate consumers for consumption on or off those premises, malt liquor, ale orbeer produced by the holder, in or from a lawful container, to the extent the sales or offers areallowed under the holder’s other permits or licenses from the Texas Alcoholic BeverageCommission.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 13 of 19
Proposed Amendments
Amending Section 5.1.1.3 (Land Use Definitions) by deleting the present definition of Liquor Store Off-Premises Consumption Manufacturer and inserting the following new definition thereof:
Delete:
d. Liquor Store Off-Premises Consumption Manufacturer means an establishment conducting,or having a license allowing, the manufacturing of alcohol
Add:
d. Liquor Store Off-Premises Consumption Manufacturer means an establishment conductingor having a license allowing the manufacturing of alcohol, except as may be allowed by theholder of a brewpub license (from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) and at aRestaurant, Brewpub as defined herein this code.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 14 of 19
Proposed Amendments
Amending Section Section 2.4.2.1 (The Land Use Matrix) new category of PERMITTED USE identified as “RESTAURANT, BREWPUB” alphabetically underneath the subheading of Trade-Retail Use and which furthermore is identified as Permitted (P) only in the following zoning classifications: NR, GR, CB, MX, GC and HC Districts.
Land Development Code Chapter 2 : Zoning Regulations Article 5 : Use Regulations
LEGEND: P-Permitted, Blank-Not Permitted, C-Conditional Use Permit, TP-Requires a Temporary Permit,Conditions Apply See Ch.2 Art.5 Div.3
Permitted Uses
Agr
icul
tura
l Ope
n Sp
ace
R
ural
R
esid
entia
l R
R-5
&
RR
1 R
esid
entia
l Sin
gle-
Fam
ily
Res
iden
tial S
ingl
e-Fa
mily
Pa
tio
Hom
e
R
esid
entia
l T
ownh
ouse
R
esid
entia
l M
ediu
m
Den
sit
y
R
esid
entia
l Mul
ti-Fa
mily
M
anuf
actu
red/
M
obile
H
om e
C
olle
ge &
Uni
vers
ity
N
eigh
borh
ood
Off
ice
O
ffic
e
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
d R
etai
l
Gen
eral
Ret
ail
M
edic
al U
se
C
entr
al B
usin
ess
M
ixed
Use
Gen
eral
Com
mer
cial
Hea
vy C
omm
erci
al
Li
ght
I ndu
stri
al
H
eavy
I n
dust
rial
Parking Requirements (also refer to Chapter 4,
Article 2,
Division 1)
AO
RR
RS
PH
TH
MD
MF
MH
CU
NO
O
NR
GR
MU
CB
MX
GC
HC
LI
HI
Trade-Retail Uses
Restaurant-
Brewpub
(Add)
P
P
P P
P P P
PermittedUses
Agric
ultu
ralO
pen
Spac
e
Rura
lRes
iden
tial
RR-5
&RR
1
Resid
entia
lSin
gle-
Fam
ilyRe
siden
tialS
ingl
e-Fa
mily
Patio
Hom
eRe
siden
tialT
ownh
ouse
Resid
entia
lMed
ium
Dens
ityRe
siden
tialM
ulti-
Fam
ilyM
anuf
actu
red/
Mob
ileHo
me
Colle
ge&
Univ
ersit
y
Neig
hbor
hood
Offi
ce
Offi
ce
Neig
hbor
hood
Reta
il
Gene
ralR
etai
l
Med
ical
Use
Cent
ralB
usin
ess
Mix
edUs
e
Gene
ralC
omm
erci
al
Heav
yCo
mm
erci
al
Ligh
tInd
ustr
ial
Heav
yIn
dust
rial
Parking Requirements (also refer
to Chapter 4,Article
2, Division
1)
AO RR RS PH TH MD MF MH CU NO O NR GR MU CB MX GC HC LI HI
Trade-Retail UsesRestaurant-
Brewpub
(Add)
P P P P P P
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 15 of 19
Proposed Amendments
2.4.3.3(a)(33) of the City of Abilene’s Land Development Code, which addresses specific requirements for LIQUOR STORES (on-premises consumption)
e. Use in Conjunction with a Standard or Brewpub Restaurant. A liquor store on-premise consumption use that, but for the sale of alcohol, may be classified as astandard restaurant or a brewpub restaurant shall not be subject to separationrequirements ordinarily required thereof and pertaining to residential or College-University districts, churches, or hospitals, if such restaurant meets the followingrequirements:
1. Valid Food and Beverage Certificate. The restaurant shall hold a valid Food andBeverage Certificate from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and saidcertificate is prominently displayed. If a requirement for obtaining said certificate shalldiffer from any other condition of this paragraph e, then the more restrictiverequirement or condition shall apply.
2. Alcohol Sales Percentage. Alcohol sales constitute no more than fifty percent(50%) of the gross receipts of the premises.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 16 of 19
Proposed Amendments
2.4.3.3(a)(33) of the City of Abilene’s Land Development Code, which addresses specific requirements for LIQUOR STORES (on-premises consumption) (cont.)
3. Kitchen and Entrees. The restaurant shall include a full-service kitchen offering aminimum of eight entrees.
4. Entrees and Alcohol for Sale. The restaurant shall offer the entrees for sale at alltimes that alcohol is offered for sale.
Delete:5. Signage. Unless the establishment meets the definition of a “Restaurant,Brewpub,” the restaurant shall not display in a manner visible from outside thestructure any signage depicting the name of any alcohol beverage manufacturer orbrand name, nor any reference to a type of alcoholic beverage including but not limitedto beer, wine, spirits, alcohol, liquor and whiskey. Provided, that any such name orreference that is integral to a food specialty prepared at the restaurant may be depicted;
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 17 of 19
Current Planning Analysis• The fundamental aim or intent of these proposed amendments is to categorically
distinguish “brewpubs” from other manufacture of alcoholic beverages.
• Sections in the Land Development Code being considered for possible amendment include Section 2.4.2.1, Section 2.4.3.3 and Section 5.1.1.3.
• The above definition includes a stipulation for standard restaurant food service to be available at a brewpub. This is also part of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s definition of a brewpub.
• If a brewpub establishment also holds a “Food and Beverage Certificate” from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, with alcoholic beverage sales comprising less than 50% of gross receipts, then such brewpub would not be subject to ordinary requirements for separating “liquor stores for on-premise consumption” from residential and College University zoning districts as well as from churches and hospitals. Otherwise, even a brewpub must meet such separation requirements.
• In the absence of proposed amendments to Abilene’s Land Development Code, then any manufacture of alcoholic beverages (including craft manufacture of beer or ale) must be restricted to industrial zoning districts only. And so long as restaurants remain prohibited from industrial zoning districts, then any “brewpub” as defined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is effectively prohibited from Abilene altogether.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 18 of 19
Ordinance Amendment OAM-2018-04
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Amending the Land Development Code regarding Section 2.4.2.1 and Section 2.4.3.3 in pertaining to ‘All Other Uses With Specific Requirements’ and Section 5.1.1.3 ‘Land Use Definitions ’ to allow for the use of ‘Brewpubs’ in conjunction with ‘Standard Restaurant’.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 18, Page 19 of 19
TO: The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Stanley Smith, City Attorney
The City Council of the City of Abilene reserves the right to adjourn into executivesession at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listedbelow, as authorized by the noted Texas Government Code Sections:A. 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney)
1. City of Abilene, Texas v. Aurora Bumgarner; 104th Judicial District Court,TaylorCounty, Texas; filed November 17, 2011
2. Chad Carter v. City of Abilene, Texas; Cause No. 10138-D, In the 350th JudicialDistrict Court, Taylor County, Texas, filed June 17, 2014
3. Susan Lewis King & Austin King MD vs Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texasand the City of Abilene, Cause No. D-1-GN-16-001160, filed March 16, 2016
4. Ruby Flores and Cory Almanza v. Jesus Verastegui, Alfredo Verastegui, RosalvaVerastegui, and City of Abilene, Cause No. 49368-A, 42nd District Court,Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, filed April 13, 2016
5. Robert Steven Reitz v. City of Abilene, Texas, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00181-BL;In the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division, filedOctober 10, 2016
6. City of Abilene and Development Corporation of Abilene v. Texas MunicipalLeague Governmental Risk Pool, Cause No. 11018-D In the 350th JudicialDistrict Court, Taylor County, Texas, filed January 9, 2017
7. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company v. Gallegos Mario Pequeno andCity of Abilene; Cause No. DC18-47480J11; In the Justice Court, Precinct 1,Place 1, Taylor County, Texas, filed May 16, 2018
8. Blanca Cortez v. Board of Building Standards of the City of Abilene; Cause No.27331-B; In the 104th Judicial District Court, Taylor County, Texas; filed April 6,2018
9. Brad McGary v. Stan Standridge, Chief of Police, and the City of Abilene; CauseNo. 50115-A, In the 42nd Judicial District Court, Taylor County, Texas, filedJune 22, 2018
10. Officer Patrick Sumrall and City of Abilene, Case No. 01-18-0000-8650; Appealof Temporary Suspension to Arbitration; Case No. ___________; Appeal ofIndefinite Suspension to Arbitration, filed January 31, 2018
11. T.M. (Tracy) Gates v. City of Abilene; Case No. 1:18-cv-00095-C; In the UnitedStates District Court, Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division; filed July 3,2018
B. 551.072 (Deliberations about Real Property)
1. The Cotton Warehouse
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 19, Page 1 of 3
SUBJECT:
C. 551.073 (Deliberations about Gifts and Donations) D. 551.074 (Personnel Matters)
1. City Council may consider appointment, employment, compensation,reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officers or employees, CityManager, City Attorney, Municipal Court Judge, City Secretary, and City Boardand Commission Members
2. The following Boards and Commissions may be discussed:9-1-1 Emergency Communications District Board of ManagersAbilene Health Facilities Development Corp.Abilene Higher Education Facilities CorporationAbilene Housing AuthorityAbilene Metropolitan Planning Organization BoardAbilene-Taylor County Child Advocacy Center BoardAbilene-Taylor County Events Venue DistrictAbilene-Taylor County Public Health District Advisory BoardAirport Development BoardAnimal Services Advisory BoardBoard of AdjustmentsBoard of Building StandardsCitizen's Advisory Board for People with DisabilitiesCityLink ADA Advisory BoardCivic Abilene, Inc.Civil Service CommissionDevelopment Corporation of Abilene, Inc.Fireman's Retirement and Relief Fund BoardFrontier Texas! Board of DirectorsKeep Abilene Beautiful, Inc.Landmarks CommissionLibrary Advisory BoardMechanical/Plumbing/Electrical & Swimming Pool Board of AppealsMental Health-Mental Retardation Board of TrusteesOffice of Neighborhood Services Advisory BoardParks & Recreation BoardPlanning and Zoning CommissionSenior Citizens Advisory BoardStreet Maintenance Advisory and Appeals BoardTaylor County Appraisal DistrictVisual Arts JuryWest Central Texas Council of GovernmentsWest Central Texas Municipal Water DistrictTax Increment Reinvestment Zone Board
E. 551.076 (Deliberations about Security Devices) F. 551.087 (Business Prospect/Economic Development)
1. Hotel Proposals
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 19, Page 2 of 3
GENERAL INFORMATION
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 19, Page 3 of 3
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Rosa Rios, City Secretary
SUBJECT: Resolution: Nominating an individual to fill the existing vacancy on the Board ofDirectors of the Jones County Appraisal District (Rosa Rios)
City CouncilAgenda Memo
City Council Meeting Date: 10/9/2018
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Jones County Appraisal District Board of Directors accepted the resignation of board member MitchHeidenheimer at the board meeting held September 4, 2018. Pursuant to Sec. 6.03 (l) of the Property TaxCode, each entity having voting entitlement has 45 days from this notification to nominate by resolution acandidate to fill the vacancy. Adoption of the resolution would allow the City to submit an individual forconsideration in filling the vacancy. The deadline to submit the resolution is October 22, 2018.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution Letter
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 20, Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS,
SUBMITTING A NOMINATION TO THE JONES COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
WHEREAS, Jones County Appraisal District Board of Directors accepted the resignation of
board member Mitch Heidenheimer at its board meeting held September 4th, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2018, the City of Abilene was notified that pursuant to Sec. 6.03
(l) of the Property Tax Code, each entity having voting entitlement has 45 days from that
notification to nominate by resolution a candidate to fill the vacancy;
WHEREAS, the Jones County Appraisal District Board of Directors will meet November 20,
2018 to elect a new member from the list of nominees submitted by participating jurisdictions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ABILENE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Abilene hereby resolves to nominate the
following individual to the Jones County Appraisal District Board of Directors”
Robert W. Higgins
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018.
ATTEST:
_________________________________ _________________________________
ROSA RIOS, CITY SECRETARY ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR
APPROVED:
_________________________________
STANLEY SMITH, CITY ATTORNEY
City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 20, Page 2 of 2
ROBERT W. “STORMY” HIGGINS 845 Comanche Trail · Abilene, Texas 79601 · (325) 829-3600
SUMMARY: Stormy Higgins is semi-retired. He has been a trainer, consultant, and counselor for more than thirty (30) years. He has been a trusted ally, working with people and people issues, helping individuals and organizations get from where they are, to where they want to be.
He has worked to improve or recover employee performance and commitment. By providing counseling, training, and consultation services, he has been able to help employees stabilize or improve their physical and/or emotional health and to improve their attitudes and morale. He has also helped managers understand the impact of mental health issues on performance, human nature, and the nature of relationships.
EXPERIENCE: IPGA 2001 - Present
• Managing partner in a publishing business. • Publishes written and audio material for exam preparation to help candidates pass the
State Licensure Exam for Licensed Professional Counselors and the National Counselors Exam
• Publishes a computer program that simulates the State Licensure Exam for Licensed Professional Counselors and National Counselors Exam.
STORMY HIGGINS, LPC 1994- 2017 • Self-employed consultant, trainer, and Licensed Professional Counselor. • Teaches about 25 seminars a year on a variety of subjects, including: How to Respond to
Trauma, How to Predict and Prevent Violence in the Workplace, How to Identify and Respond to a Troubled Employee, and Dealing with People and People Issues.
• Critical incident response. ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 2005 – 2014
• Adjunct Instructor teaching Introduction to Human Resource Management • Adjunct Instructor teaching Employee and Labor Relations. • Adjunct Instructor teaching Family Finance.
RESOURCES FOR LIVING 1988 - 1994
• Played the lead role in the development of this enterprise, which implemented employee assistance programs for clients, including WAL-MART, SAM'S, Kroger and First National Bank of Abilene.
• Recruited and trained a staff to perform duties in support of the client's mission. • Compiled and edited training material, which was, used with some 20,000 management
personnel. • Led over 200 seminars covering Stress Management, Communications, Adapting to
Change, Responding to Trauma, Building Relationships, Balancing Work and Family Concerns, and Empowerment.
• Counseled over 4,000 persons from executives to part-time hourly employees, including managers needing help with employees, parents needing help with a problem child or the loss of a child, couples needing help building or reviving a marriage, individuals struggling with emotional issues such as guilt, anger, etc., and individuals struggling with suicidal thoughts, incest, etc.
• Responded to numerous critical incidents (i.e. murders, suicides, accidents) that received specialized handling.
• Represented corporate clients at press conferences regarding the corporations' response to employees in dealing with trauma occurring in the workplace.
• Acted as corporate representative to clients following traumatic events. • Created 5 training videos.
EDUCATION:
• Post Graduate Certificate, Conflict Mediation, ACU, 2002 • Masters Degree, Marriage and Family Therapy, ACU, 1989 • Bachelor of Science, ACU. 1986
LICENSES:
• Licensed Professional Counselor, Texas • Licensed Professional Counselor Supervisor, Texas
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT:
• City of Abilene TIRZ Board (2015 – present) • Elder, Highland Church of Christ (2003 - 2016) • City Councilmember, City of Abilene (2004 - 2013) • Board of Directors, Jones County Tax Appraisal District (2004 - 2010) • Chairman and Board member, Board of Trustees, Christian Homes and Family Services
(2003 - 2007) • Vice President and Board member, Lake Fort Phantom Homeowners Association (2002 –
2007) • President and Board member, Big Country Society for Human Resource Management
(1994 - 2001) • President and Board member, Texas Midwest Chapter of the American Society for
Training and Development (1997 - 2004)