City of Abilene City Council Agenda

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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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



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


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)



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.


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.



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 recommends adoption of the resolution.


ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution LetterProposed Agreement Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation


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.


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


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.



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.



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.



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



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]



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


2018 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT

BETWEEN ABILENE, MIDLAND AND SAN

ANGELO

October 9, 2018


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


Questions

3City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Page 13 of 13


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)



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.


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 for this professional services contract is included in the 2019 Annual Operating Budget of the WaterUtilities Department.


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.



ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Resolution LetterContract Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Backup MaterialPresentation Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Presentation


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


Authorize a Professional Services Contract with Alan Plummer Associates Inc. for the

Water Treatment Plant Master Plan.

October 9, 2018


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.


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.


Authorize a Professional Services Contract with Alan Plummer Associates Inc. for the

Water Treatment Plant Master Plan.

QUESTIONS?



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).



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.


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.


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 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.


N/A

ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution LetterPurchase Summary Backup MaterialEquipment Quotes Backup MaterialPowerPoint Presentation


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 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


Purchase of Various IT Network Gear, Servers, and

SoftwareOctober 9, 2018


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



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)



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.




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.


ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution LetterBid Tabulation Sheet Backup Material


Presentation Presentation


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 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


Bid Award:Sale of 140 Mulberry St

October 9, 2018


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.


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)



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.



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).



Staff recommends approval of repeal and amendments to the Sign Ordinance.


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


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.


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


“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


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,


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


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;


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


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;


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




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


LCPI


36 ft.(5), (6)



RM MH CU 20 sq. ft.(3)

10 ft.(3)

10 feet from property line

One per business or activity per street frontage


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


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


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.


(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,


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


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.


“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


(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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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





(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,


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.


(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:


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.;


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 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)


(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)


(1)


O

N

S

I

T

E

Business and/or Identifi-cation

AO 700 sq. ft.

35 ft.

(5), (6)

10 ft. from property line



MU

O

36 sq. ft. 12 ft 10 ft. from property line



SC GR

CB

GC

HC

LI

HI


50 ft, except in CB (no restrictions)

(5), (6)



LC

PI LI


36 ft.

(5), (6)



RM MH CU

20 sq. ft.

(3)

10 ft.

(3)

10 feet from property line

One per business or activity per street frontage


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


Con- All Districts

80 sq. ft. 15 ft. 10 feet from all propert

n/a Yes Yes Maximum Duration


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


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


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.



(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.



(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.



(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.


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.


(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.


(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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


SOME HIGHLIGHTS:


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.


http://z2.franklinlegal.net/franklin/DocViewer.jsp?docid=77&z2collection=abilene#JD_23-171

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.


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.


(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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


QUESTIONS?



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)



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.




Staff recommends passage of the Ordinance.


ATTACHMENTS:Description Type


Ordinance Cover OrdinanceExhibit A ExhibitPresentation Presentation


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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?


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)



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.




Staff recommends acceptance of the report.



ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeAudit Report Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation


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


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


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.



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.




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.




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.



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.



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.



• 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.



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.



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.



• 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.



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



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



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.



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.



F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7


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.



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



• 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.



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



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%



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.



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.



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.



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



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).




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.



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.



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.



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


• Young Frankenstein

• Stomp • 100 Years of

Broadway • Shrek the

Musical


• Cirque Dreams Holidaze

• West Side Story

• Spamalot • Elvis Lives


• Ballroom with a Twist

• Beauty and the Beast

• Hello Dolly • Hair


• Jekyll and Hyde

• Broadway Holiday

• Million Dollar Quartet

• Camelot


• Mamma Mia • Ragtime • Annie • Bullets Over

Broadway


• 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


• Charlotte’s Web

• Fred Barbo Inflatable Theater Co.

• Alice in Wonderland


• Angelina Ballerina

• The Magic of Bill Blagg

• The Wizard of Oz


• Sleeping Beauty

• Imaginocean • Pinkalicious


• Skippyjon Jones

• Popovich • Fancy Nancy

the Musical


• 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



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.






HeArts for the ARTSW: Solicit $20,000 in donations to augment the grants budget.

Solicited $12,616 to support grants budget.





Solicited $21,254 to support the 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.

Transitioned to Storybook Capital of Texas Marketing Platform.



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.







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



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.



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.


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



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:



• 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:



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.



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.



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%


Booked 39,135 – did not achieve goal


Booked 60,832 with multiple year contract for 5 years.

Goal achieved-55% increase


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.



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.


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.



F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7


Tour

ism




Hotel bookings decreased 10%

Expand hotel room bookings by 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.



F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7


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.



F Y 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 F Y 2 0 1 6 - 1 7


Loca

l Dev

elop

men

t


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.



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


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)



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.



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



• 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



• 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.



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.



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.



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.


Hotel Occupancy Tax Performance Audit

October 9, 2018


• 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


• 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


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


• Collaborative culture between the City, ACOC, ACVB, and ACAC

• Active Board engagement across entities and within the community

• Revenue and tourism growth

5

Commendations


• 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


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


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


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.



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



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



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


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



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



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


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



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


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



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)



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.


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.


NA



There is no action required of the City Council for this item. Staff is seeking feedback from the council asdescribed above.


ATTACHMENTS:Description TypePresentation Water Rate Study Presentation


Water and Wastewater Utility System Rate Study and Capital

Improvements Program Discussion

October 9, 2018


• 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


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


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


The Rate Study Process


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


Existing Residential Rate Comparisons

14

Abilene Existing


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


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


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%)


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


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


• 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


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.


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






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)


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


Total: $12.48

2020 CIP Schedule


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)


Total: $25.05

2021 CIP Schedule


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)


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


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


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


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


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


Debt Service Graph


Water and Wastewater Utility System Rate Study and Capital Improvements

Program Discussion

Questions?



FROM: Michael Rice, Asst. City Manager

SUBJECT: Presentation: Abilene Citizen Perceptions Survey (Michael Rice)



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.



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.



ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeSatisfaction Survey Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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).


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).


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


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.


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.


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).


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%


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).


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.


18

Figure 2. Age of Respondents

Table 3. Age Distribution of the Sample


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


23

Figure 3. Achievement of Individual City Goals

Table 9. Goal Achievement


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


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


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.


25

Figure 5. Difference in Overall Goal by Ethnicity

Table 11. Goal Achievement by Ethnicity


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).


26

Figure 6. Difference in Overall Goal by Age

Table 12. Goal Achievement by Age


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).


27

Figure 7. Difference in Overall goal by Time in City

Table 13. Goal Achievement by Length of Time in City


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).


28

Figure 8. Overall Goal Achievement by Education Level

Table 14. Goal Achievement by Education Level


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).


29

Figure 9. Difference in Overall Goal by Housing Type

Table 15. Goal Achievement by Housing Type


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).


30

Figure 10. Difference in Overall Goal by Household Income

Table 16. Goal Achievement by Household Income


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


36


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



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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.



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


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


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


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.



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


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.



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


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.



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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



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


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


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


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



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.


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


69

Figure 46. Support for Bond Initiatives by Education Level


<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



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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/4801000

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/abilenecitytexas/PST045217

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/abilenecitytexas/PST045217

78

APPENDIX A

Paper Version of the Survey (English and Spanish)


79


80


81


82


83


84


85


86


87


88


89


90


91


92

APPENDIX B

Spanish Version Of The Survey


93


94


95


96


97


98


99


100


101


102


103


104


105


106


107


108


109


110


111


112


113


114


115


116


117


118


119


120


121


122


123


124


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


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


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


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)


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)


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%


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


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


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


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.


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:


Public Safety

Library Services


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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)


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


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)


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


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)


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)


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)


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”)


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


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


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



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)



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).




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.


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:


Description TypeOrdinance Cover OrdinanceOrdinance Exhibit ExhibitStaff Report Backup MaterialNotification Mail Out Backup MaterialPresentation Presentation


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


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


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.



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



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


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


•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


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


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 [email protected] 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: [email protected]


I am in favor I am opposed

Additional Comments: Signature:

NOTIFICATION AREA MAP

Z-2018-26


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


• 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


• 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.



Z-2018-26 Aerial Map


Z-2018-26 Zoning Map (with Staff and P&Z recommendation)

GR/CORNR


Z-2018-26 Existing Land Use Map


Z-2018-26 Thoroughfare Map


Z-2018-26 Notification Map

N0- In Favor-

0- Opposed-


Z-2018-26 Views of Subject Property and Adjacent Properties


Z-2018-26 Subject & Adjacent Properties


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


• 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 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




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)



GENERAL INFORMATION

The applicants are requesting to rezone seven now-vacant lots from Residential Single Family (RS-6) toMedical Use (MU)




Staff recommends approval.


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




















Abilene.



APPROVED:

______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY


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


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.



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


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



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


(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.


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.


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


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 recommends approval of the request.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the request.

Z-2018-27


• 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.



• 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.



Z-2018-27 Zoning Map



17 - In Favor-

5 - Opposed-

Area of Notification: 320,654 sqftSubject Properties: 48,810 sqftArea of Opposition: 43,260 sqft13.5%


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


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


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


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


• 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.






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)



GENERAL INFORMATION

The applicant is requesting to apply Historic Overlay Zoning on their property.






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




















Abilene.



APPROVED:

______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY


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


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.



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


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



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


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


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


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


Owner: Richard Wright

Request: Historic Overlay

Location: 842 Sayles Boulevard

Notification: 0 in favor, 0 opposed


Staff recommends approval of the request.


Z-2018-28


• 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.



• (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


Z-2018-28 Zoning Map



N0- In Favor-

0- Opposed-


• 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.






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)



GENERAL INFORMATION

The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a crematorium in Heavy Commercial (HC)zoning.


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.





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


Staff Report Backup MaterialSPO Responses Backup MaterialCUP Site Plan Waiver Letter Backup MaterialPowerPoint Presentation




DEVELOPMENT CODE" OF THE ABILENE CITY CODE, BY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT (CUP) AFFECTING CERTAIN PROPERTY; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING;



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.












Abilene.



APPROVED:

______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY


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-


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.



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


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



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


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


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


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


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


/%\\N.ABiLENE Rainbow, Zack <zack.rainbowabiIenetx.gov>

CUP Application

Rainbow, Zack <zack.rainbowabilenetx.gov> Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:25 AMTo: [email protected]

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)


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:


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


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)


Approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing the ‘Crematorium’ at this location.


CUP-2018-04


• 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


CUP-2018-04 AERIAL IMAGERY


CUP-2018-04 ZONING MAP


CUP-2018-04 Existing Land Use Map


CUP-2018-04 THOROUGHFARE MAP


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


CUP-2018-04 Views of Subject Property and Adjacent Properties


CUP-2018-04 Property and Adjacent Properties


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.


Staff Recommendation

CUP-2018-04




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)



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).




City staff recommends approving proposed amendments to Abilene’s Land Development Code, as presented.


The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval unanimously with six (6) in favor and none inopposition.

ATTACHMENTS:Description Type


Ordinance OrdinanceMemo Cover MemoDraft LDC Amendments - Rev Backup MaterialChapter 74 TABC Backup MaterialPowerPoint Presentation




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.


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.




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.



ATTEST: _______________________________________ CITY SECRETARY MAYOR

APPROVED: _______________________________________

CITY ATTORNEY


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




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


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;


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




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


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’.



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.


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.


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


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.


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;


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.


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’.



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




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


GENERAL INFORMATION






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)



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.





ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeResolution Resolution Letter


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


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)

City of Abilene City Council Agenda

Documents

Transcript of City of Abilene City Council Agenda