City of Canyon Commission Meetings

AGENDA NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that the governing body of the City of Canyon will meet at 5:30 p.m. on the 7th day of July, 2014, in the Commission Chambers of City Hall at 301 16th Street in the City of Canyon to discuss the following agenda items: 1. Call to Order. 2. Invocation. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of June 16, 2014. 5. Public Forum – Comments from Interested Citizens. 6. Update from City Staff (Status of Audit, Water Usage). 7. First Reading of Resolution No. 06-2014, A Resolution for Funding of Sayakomarn. 8. First Reading of Resolution No. 07-2014, A Resolution for Funding of Blue Bison 9. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Ordinance No. 979, An Ordinance of the City of Canyon, Texas to Restrict Chickens and Prohibit Fowl Within the City Limits of the City of Canyon, Texas. 10. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Proposed Speed Hump Policy. 11. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Update from Lavin Architects on City Hall Study. 12. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Request For Additional Staff and Equipment for the Addition of WTAMU Facilities to Solid Waste Services. 13. Executive Session Pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property, §551.087 Economic Development Negotiations and §551.071 Consultation with Attorney. 14. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Items Discussed in Executive Session. 15. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Meeting Dates for the Month of July. 16. Adjournment. Randy Criswell, City Manager I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the bulletin board of the Civic Complex of the City of Canyon, Texas on the 13th day of June, 2014. Gretchen Mercer, City Clerk City of Canyon City Commission Meeting June 16, 2014 The City Commission of the City of Canyon met in regular session at 5:30 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers of the Civic Complex. Mayor Alexander presided over the meeting with the following Commissioners in attendance: Mayor Pro-Tem Jed Welch, Gary Hinders , Justin Richardson and David Logan. Also present were the following City Staff: City Manager Randy Criswell, City Secretary Gretchen Mercer, Assistant City Manager Chris Sharp, Code Enforcement Director Danny Cornelius, Business and Community Development Director Evelyn Ecker, Director of Public Works Dan Reese, Police Chief Dale Davis, Fire Chief Mike Webb and City Attorney Chuck Hester. Item 1. Call to Order. Mayor Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Item 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Alexander led the Pledge of Allegiance. Item 3. Invocation. Commissioner Hinders gave the invocation. Item 4. Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of June 2, 2014. Mayor Alexander said Item 8 stated he adjourned the Commission into Executive Session and he was not present; so it needed to be corrected to read that Mayor Pro-Tem Welch adjourned the Commission into Executive Session. Mayor Pro-Tem Welch moved, duly seconded by Commissioner Logan, to approve the minutes of June 2, 2014 with correction as stated by Mayor Alexander. Motion carried unanimously. Item 5. Public Forum – Comments from Interested Citizens. Mr. Mickey Crawford of 2611 4th Ave addressed the Commissioners. Mr. Crawford stated he had lived at the stated address for 16 years and was in favor of the restricted parking being proposed. Mr. Crawford said it is difficult to pull out of his driveway due to all the cars and sometimes buses parked along the street. Item 6. Update From City Staff (Status of Audit, Water Usage, Mosquito Issues, New Telephone System/glitches, Canyon Named #7 in Top 15 Small Cities in Texas by Cities Journal, City Hall). City Manager Randy Criswell gave brief updates as follows. Mr. Criswell said he has asked the auditors when they will be prepared to present the City of Canyon audit and they keep saying they are not ready. Mr. Criswell stated Assistant City City Commission Meeting June 16, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Manager Chris Sharp gave them a deadline of July 7, 2014 to present the audit. Mr. Criswell said an audit committee would be put together before the audit is presented. Mr. Criswell said with the recent rains water usage varied from winter lows to 2.6 - 3 million gallons a day which was manageable. Mr. Criswell stated this allowed the city to meet budget projections while being conservative. Mr. Criswell said with the rains comes the inconvenience of mosquitoes. Mr. Criswell reported the city has been divided in half with each half sprayed alternately every night weather permitting, and standing water is being treated with larvicide. If the chemical is disbursed into high wind money is being wasted since the chemical has to cloud to be effective. Mr. Criswell stated employees have been given information to share with citizens that they can make a difference by purchasing chemicals for mosquito control and applying it to grass and shrubs where they hide during the day. Everyone working together can alleviate the problem. Mr. Criswell stated City Hall has installed a new phone system with outside city offices scheduled to get theirs soon. Mr. Criswell said a few glitches are being worked out but felt the new system overall would allow for a lot of flexibility and connectability. Mr. Criswell informed the City Commission that Canyon has been named #7 in the Top 15 Small Cities in Texas by the Cities Journal, and had also recently been recognized as #14 of the Top 40 Destinations in Texas. Mr. Criswell said we should all be very proud of that as Canyon is a very special place and we are doing a lot of good things, and getting noticed. Mr. Criswell thanked the Commission for their support of the projects that continue to improve Canyon. Mr. Criswell stated Assistant City Manager for Special Projects Jon Behrens has really been working with Lavin Architects on the city hall study. Mr. Criswell said Mr. Behrens has done an excellent job of getting meetings set up, communication with the Historical Commission on possible designs and plans to have a report presented to the commission within a few weeks. Mayor Alexander asked if a deadline for the architect report could be set for July 7. Item 7. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Ordinance No. 1005, Proposed Restrictive Parking on 4th Avenue from 26th Street to 28th Street. Police Chief Dale Davis presented Ordinance No. 1005 for consideration. Chief Davis thanked the Commission for allowing this item to be presented again and gave a brief history of the development of Ordinance No. 1005. Chief Davis said the parking situation in the 2600 and 2700 blocks of 4th Ave on the north side create a visual impairment and presented photos taken in these areas. Chief Davis stated he had visited with WTAMU Campus Police and gotten parking counts and these counts showed roughly 3994 parking places available to students not counting handicapped parking. Chief Davis said the counts showed 1,590 parking places available during classes with 506 automobiles parked on 5th, 2nd, and 3rd Avenues and around Pizza Hut. Chief Davis stated Shawn Burns of the WTAMU Campus Police Department said they can easily accommodate all the parked cars and indicated this fall semester, registration fees will include a parking permit for every student. Commissioners inquired about the development of a policy directed at WTAMU student parking. Chief Davis replied he had visited with Texas Tech and their policy issues a parking permit to each homeowner within a certain perimeter of the campus City Commission Meeting June 16, 2014 Page 3 of 5 to park in front of their home. Vehicles that are parked in the street without one of these permits are towed. Chief Davis said it would take several months to implement such a policy and he would like to give the mandatory permitting process a little time to see if it will resolve the issue. Chief Davis said he just felt it was needed to address a safety issue at this location now. After discussion, Commissioner Richardson moved, duly seconded by Mayor Alexander to adopt Ordinance 1005 as presented. In further discussion, Commissioner Logan stated he felt if parking in the street presented a safety issue, he didn't think parking should be allowed at any time. Commissioners expressed concern with other problem areas due to WTAMU parking to which Chief Davis said he will be able to tell within a few weeks of the start of the fall semester if the problem still exists. If so, he will bring a policy to be considered to the Commissioners. Commissioner Hinders then moved to amend the motion for the approval of Ordinance No. 1005 as made by Commissioner Richardson to not allow any parking in the 2600 and 2700 blocks of 4th Avenue on the north side, regardless of time or day. Motion carried with the amendment unanimously. Item 8. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Resolution No. 09-2014 Authorizing the City of Canyon to Participate in the Panhandle Region - Regional Mutual Aid Agreement and Authorizing the Mayor to Serve as the City's Chief Representative in all Matters Pertaining to the Cities Participation in This Agreement. Fire Chief Mike Webb presented Resolution No. 09-2014 for consideration. Chief Webb stated the Panhandle Regional Emergency Management Advisory Committee has been working to update the original Panhandle Regional Mutual Aid Agreement (MAA) adopted by the City of Canyon in 2004. Chief Webb stated some changes went into effect for the Statewide Mutual Aid System with the passage of HB 3178. Chief Webb said this includes the provision of "The requesting local government entity shall reimburse the actual costs of providing mutual aid assistance to the responding local entity for a response that exceeds 12 consecutive hours". Chief Webb stated the current MAA has no provision for recovery of response costs, and currently Panhandle agencies exchange mutual aid freely understanding that the help will be returned in-kind. Chief Webb said FEMA recently ruled that if a region is willing to exchange no- cost mutual aid on non-declared events, when declared events occur, the agency won't reimburse the responding agencies for mutual aid costs that exceeds a 12 hour response time. Chief Webb said the Panhandle Regional Planning Commission endorsed the approval of this Resolution. After discussion, Commissioner Logan moved, duly seconded by Commissioner Richardson to approve Resolution No. 09-2014 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Item 9. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Resolution No. 08-2014 Granting Approval for the Canyon Chamber of Commerce to Conduct a Fireworks Show Within the City Limits of Canyon on July 4th, 2014. Fire Chief Mike Webb presented Resolution No. 08-2014 for consideration. Chief Webb said the City of Canyon received a request from the Canyon Chamber of Commerce for permission to conduct their annual 4th of July fireworks display on city property north of Kimbrough Stadium. City Commission Meeting June 16, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Chief Webb stated since the possession and use of fireworks inside the city limits is prohibited by City Ordinance the City Commission has to grant permission to allow any exceptions. After discussion, Commissioner Hinders moved, duly seconded by Commissioner Logan to approve Resolution No. 08-2014 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Item 10. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on 6 Month Progress Review of Substandard Structure Repair at 710 8th Street. Code Enforcement Director Danny Cornelius presented evidence of the progress made on property located at 710 8th Street by the property owner Mark Pinkerton. Mr. Cornelius said he recommended allowing Mr. Pinkerton to continue on the repair and renovation of the property and introduced Mr. Pinkerton for questions. Commissioner Logan stated he has driven by the property every day since 1999 and the cleanup and repairs are very evident. After discussion, Commissioner Logan moved, duly seconded by Commissioner Hinders to allow Mark Pinkerton to continue work on the property located at 710 8th street. Mayor Pro-Tem Welch asked if the property was insured including the roof. Mr. Pinkerton said the home is insured, and that only the new part of the roof was covered. Mr. Pinkerton stated he also had construction insurance. Motion carried 4-1 with Mayor Pro-Tem Welch opposed. Item 11. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Proposed "Speed Hump" Policy for the City of Canyon. Police Chief Dale Davis presented the City Commission with a proposed Speed Hump Policy. Chief Davis stated the city receives requests for speed humps from around town several times a year. Chief Davis said City Manager Randy Criswell asked that he do some research to see how other cities handle these requests. Chief Davis said he found cities such as Amarillo, Austin, and San Antonio do have policies in place and he and Public Works Director Dan Reese used these examples to create the policy presented. Chief Davis said streets designated as "emergency response routes" cannot have speed humps. Chief Davis said with the proposed policy a petition would have to be submitted with any citizen request to which Chief Davis and Mr. Reese would consider the necessity. City Manager Randy Criswell added the policy was being presented so that the Commission could decide if the city wants to pay all or will it be a shared cost for speed humps, will there be an appeal process or if they even wanted to adopt a policy. Mr. Criswell pointed out the City of Canyon Charter states the Police Chief is in charge of the placement of all traffic devices. Chief Davis stated speed humps do create issues with snow removal and the Police do work hard to slow traffic down with their presence and with the radar trailer. Commissioner Hinders suggested speed humps put in place due to citizen request be paid for by that citizen making sure they were serious. Mayor Alexander encouraged the Commission to print the proposed policy out, study it and ask questions before it's presented at the next meeting. Item 12. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Ordinance No. 1007, E-Cigarettes. Police Chief Dale Davis presented Ordinance No. 1007 for consideration. Chief Davis had on display several e-cigarettes taken off of Canyon High School students that day. Chief Davis stated e-cigarettes were originally manufactured as a device to wean people off of nicotine City Commission Meeting June 16, 2014 Page 5 of 5 addiction comparable to a nicotine patch or gum, but giving the user the sensation of inhaling smoke. Chief Davis said nicotine was highly addictive and with no laws in place to prohibit the sale to or use by minors, anyone can purchase and use them. Even retailers identify that e- cigarettes are a threat to our youth since they contain nicotine and can be puffed on all day giving a constant flow of nicotine. Chief Davis stated school systems have recognized the issues associated with e-cigarettes and do not allow them and that he feels the possession of them by anyone under the age of 18 will be outlawed in the next legislative session. Commissioner Logan asked if a parent would be allowed to purchase e-cigarettes and give them to their child, Chief Davis said no. Commissioner Logan stated that he didn’t like usurping parental authority. If a parent wanted to provide their child with one of these devices, he felt they should be able to do so. Chief Davis said he recommended the adoption of Ordinance No. 1007 to protect children. After discussion, Mayor Pro-Tem Welch moved, duly seconded by Commissioner Hinders to adopt Ordinance No. 1007 as presented. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Logan opposed. Item 13. Executive Session Pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property, §551.087 Economic Development Negotiations and §551.074 Personnel Matters (City Attorney). Mayor Alexander indicated the Commission would adjourn into executive session at 7:11 p.m. Item 14. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Items Discussed in Executive Session. Upon returning from executive session at 8:40 pm, the following action was taken. Commissioner Logan moved, duly seconded by Commissioner Richardson to authorize City Manager Randy Criswell to purchase TxDOT land on Hwy 60 for the appraised value. Motion carried unanimously. Item 15. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Pro-Tem Welch moved this meeting be adjourned. __________________________ Quinn Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Gretchen Mercer, City Secretary  AGENDA To: Randy Criswell, City Manager From: Evelyn Ecker, Executive Director Date: June 25, 2014 Re: First Reading of Resolution 06-2014, A Resolution Approving a Project Funding Agreement Between the Canyon Economic Development Corporation and Cindy Sayakomarn, an individual dba Sayakomarn’s Thai and Lao Cuisine. At the May 21, 2014 meeting, the Canyon Economic Development Board approved to engage in a transaction to convey the undeveloped property located at 421 16th Street in Canyon to Cindy Sayakomarn for the construction of a new restaurant. The property is currently owned by the CEDC and valued at $35,000. The second portion of the incentive package is a pledge of $60,000 as soon as construction starts; $20,000 six months after from date of opening new location, and the final installment of $20,000 on the one (1) year anniversary of the new location. The last two disbursements are based on percentage of increase in gross sales. A local contractor, GPD is going to construct the new building. There has not been a new building construction on the Square since 1947. The value of this project is $643,000. According to the Pre-Construction Schedule the start date is August 1st. I am providing a draft of the proposed Funding Agreement. The agreement was developed by Chuck Hester, City Attorney. Cindy Sayakomarn also has the agreement for her review and legal counsel as well. A Public Hearing was conducted during the June 12, 2014 meeting of the CEDC. The project did not have any opposition. The first reading of Resolution 06-2014 is scheduled on the agenda for July 7, 2014. The second reading and adoption is proposed for July 21, 2014. City of Canyon  RESOLUTION NO. 06-2014 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CANYON APPROVING PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CINDY SAYAKOMARN, AN INDIVIDUAL dba SAYAKOMARN’S THAI AND LAO CUISINE AND CANYON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGARDING DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND A LAND GRANT FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 421 16TH STREET. THE FUNDING IS BASED ON BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION. WHEREAS, on June 12, 2014, the Canyon Economic Development Corporation (“CEDC”) conducted a public hearing regarding the use of sales and use tax revenues collected pursuant to the Development Corporation Act of 1979 (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Art. 5190.6 §4B, (“the Act”) and to consider a funding agreement for the primary purpose of which is the developing, stabilizing, diversifying, and expanding the economy through the retention, recruitment, expansion, and employment opportunities of the citizens of Canyon and the surrounding area and to enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Canyon and the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Canyon, Texas, finds it to be in the public interest to execute a Project Funding Agreement between the Canyon Economic Development Corporation and Cindy Sayakomarn, Business Owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CANYON, TEXAS: That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively on behalf of the City of Canyon, Texas, a Project Funding Agreement between the Canyon Economic Development Corporation and Cindy Sayakomarn; regarding the use of funds from the Sales Tax Improvement Fund (Fund 40) for costs related to the project. INTRODUCED at the First Reading on the 7th day of July, 2014 and Adopted on the Second Reading the 21st day of July, 2014. ________________________________ QUINN J ALEXANDER, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ Gretchen Mercer, City Clerk  AGENDA To: Mayor and City Commission From: Evelyn Ecker, Executive Director Canyon Economic Development Corp. Date: June 27, 2014 Re: First Reading of Resolution 07-2014, A Resolution Approving Project Funding Agreement Between Blue Bison Investment L.L.C. and the Canyon Economic Development Corporation Regarding Direct Financial Assistance for the Property Renovation Located at 410 15th Street.. Blue Bison Investments LLC recently purchased the property located at 410 15th Street in Canyon. The property was previously an accounting firm and currently is vacant. Stan Ware is the active Manager of Blue Bison Investments LLC. and is also the owner of the Johnston’s Hardware building which recently completed an interior and exterior renovation. The CEDC participated in the project by providing Direct Financial Assistance. The vision of Blue Bison is to renew the properties’ income earning ability, bringing more money to the city in the form of sales tax, by remodeling it back into a retail location. The exterior renovation will be complimentary to the revitalization of the buildings on the Square, contributing to the continued growth of the area. The renovation will include removal of existing offices, storage closets, flooring, and bricked up front façade. New lighting, ceiling tiles, and flooring will be part of the renovation. The intent of the owner is to a have the building in a white box condition ready to lease upon completion. The renovation cost for the project is estimated at $105,000. Blue Bison will be performing some of the renovation, but for the most part will be bid out. Canyon based businesses will be used for those portions Blue Bison cannot perform. Blue Bison has requested assistance from the CEDC with regards to Existing Business Property Improvement. The CEDC has made a commitment to the project not to exceed $52,500. The project is expected to be complete in 18 months. The funding will disbursed in increments throughout the 18 month period. City of Canyon  RESOLUTION NO. 07-2014 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CANYON APPROVING PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN BLUE BISON INVESTMENTS, LLC. AND CANYON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGARDING DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE PROPERTY RENOVATION LOCATED AT 410 15TH STREET. THE FUNDING IS BASED ON RECRUITMENT OF NEW BUSINESS. WHEREAS, on June 12, 2014, the Canyon Economic Development Corporation (“CEDC”) conducted a public hearing regarding the use of sales and use tax revenues collected pursuant to the Development Corporation Act of 1979 (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Art. 5190.6 §4B, (“the Act”) and to consider a funding agreement for the primary purpose of which is the developing, stabilizing, diversifying, and expanding the economy through the retention, recruitment, expansion, and employment opportunities of the citizens of Canyon and the surrounding area and to enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Canyon and the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Canyon, Texas, finds it to be in the public interest to execute a Project Funding Agreement between the Canyon Economic Development Corporation and Blue Bison Investments LLC., property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CANYON, TEXAS: That the Project Funding Agreement by and between CEDC and Blue Bison Investments LLC. is hereby approved, and the sales tax revenue collected pursuant to “the Act” by CEDC may be used for the primary purpose of financial assistance for property improvements in order to develop leasing space for new business enterprises. The sales tax revenue referred to in this Resolution shall be the revenue on deposit in the Sales Tax Improvement Fund (Fund 40) for direct costs related to the project. INTRODUCED at the First Reading on the 7th day of July, 2014, and Adopted on the Second Reading on the 21st day of July, 2014. ________________________________ QUINN J ALEXANDER, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ Gretchen Mercer, City Clerk  CANYON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT BLUE BISON INVESTMENTS, LLC This agreement is made by and between the Canyon Economic Development Corporation (CEDC), a Texas non-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the TEXAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT and Blue Bison Investments, LLC a Texas Limited Liability Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Second Party.”) 1. The purpose of this agreement is to facilitate the proper use of funds held and administered by the CEDC, a tax supported non-profit corporation whose primary income is from sales tax collected within the City of Canyon and dedicated exclusively to economic development. The sales tax supporting CEDC is authorized as a local option under Chapter 504 and 505 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE, formerly TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ART. 5190.6 §4B, the primary purpose of which is the developing, stabilizing, diversifying, and expanding the economy through the retention, recruitment, expansion, and employment opportunities of the citizens of Canyon and the surrounding area and to enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Canyon and the surrounding area. 2. The project and performance requirements to be implemented by means of this agreement are described as follows: a. Second Party shall construct improvements to the property located at 410 15th Street. The building will be completely renovated into a retail location. The remodel will be complimentary to the revitalization of the buildings on the Square. b. The property is located Lot 006, Block 0042, Original Town of, Randall County, Texas. Remodel & construction will take place at this property only. c. The improvements contemplated by this agreement shall be constructed in accordance with written plans and specifications and approved by CEDC. d. The estimated time of completion for the renovation is twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months. 3. The CEDC will provide the following funding and financial incentives for the project: a. An amount, not to exceed $52,500.00 payable as follows: reimbursement will occur quarterly during the renovation phase. Reimbursement will be made when invoice for supplies and labor cost are presented. Project Funding Agreement - Blue Bison Investments, LLC Page 1  b. All other terms and provisions of this agreement notwithstanding, the obligations of the parties hereto are expressly made contingent upon the following: i approval of the financial incentives by the CEDC Board; ii approval of the financial incentives by the Canyon City Commission; and, iii compliance with the requirements of the Texas Development Corporation Act. 4. The failure of Second Party to fully and timely comply with any performance requirement shall be an act of default by Second Party which shall entitle the CEDC to suspend further funding and, at its option, to terminate this agreement by written notice delivered pursuant to paragraph 9. In such event, all financial incentives provided by CEDC to Second Party shall be repaid to CEDC upon demand. 5. Second Party agrees to undertake the following actions in order to accomplish the project: a. Comply at all times with the requirements of paragraph 2 of this agreement during the term of this agreement. b. Permit an audit by the CEDC of the books and financial records of Second Party, to determine whether Second Party is in compliance with this agreement. c. Permit periodic inspection of improvements to the building at 410 15th Street, Canyon, Texas as remodeling work progresses and as Second Party Submits invoices and/or statements to CEDC for payment. 6. Second Party makes the following covenants and warranties to the CEDC and agrees to timely and fully perform the following obligations and duties: a. Any false or substantially misleading statement contained herein or the failure of Second Party to comply and fully perform as required in this agreement shall be an act of default by Second Party. Failure to comply with any covenant or warranties shall constitute an act of default and entitle the CEDC to suspend further funding and at it’s option to terminate this agreement by written notice in accordance with paragraph 9 below. b. Second Party is authorized to do business in Texas, is in good standing in the State of Texas and shall remain in good standing in the State of Texas during the term of this agreement. c. The execution of this agreement has been duly authorized by the governing body of Second Party and all necessary corporate approvals have been obtained. Second Party’s designated agent or officer executing this agreement is duly authorized and empowered to execute this agreement and bind Second Party to the covenants, warranties and other terms of this agreement. Second Party’s Project Funding Agreement - Blue Bison Investments, LLC Page 2  execution of this agreement and the performance thereof is not contrary to any law, rule, regulation, or provisions of Second Party’s organizational documents or any contract, instrument, or agreement to which Second Party is a party or by which it may be bound at the time this agreement is executed. The necessary authority for the agent whose signature that appears below is evidenced by a resolution or certificate furnished to CEDC or attached to this agreement. d. No litigation or governmental proceeding is pending or to the knowledge of Second Party is contemplated or threatened against Second Party or affecting it’s operations or business that may result in any material or adverse change in Second Party’s business, properties, or operations. To Second Party’s knowledge, no additional consent, approval, or authorization of a governmental entity or other authority is required in connection with the execution and performance of this agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby. e. To Second Party’s knowledge no certificate or statement delivered by Second Party to CEDC in connection with this agreement or any transaction contemplated by this agreement contains any untrue statement or fails to state the facts necessary to keep the statements contained therein from being misleading or false. f. There are no bankruptcy proceedings or other legal proceedings currently pending or contemplated affecting the Second Party. The Second Party has not been informed of any intent to initiate involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against Second Party. g. To it’s knowledge Second Party has acquired and maintained all necessary rights, licenses, permits, and authority to carry on it’s business in Texas and to perform the terms of this agreement and will continue to use it’s best efforts to maintain all necessary rights, licenses, and permits in current status and good standing. h. The funds provided by CEDC shall be utilized solely for the purpose of the project as stated in this agreement and within the scope of the project as stated in this agreement and for no other purpose. i. Second Party shall pay all taxes and assessments due and owing to all taxing authorities having jurisdiction over Second Party’s property and business operations. In addition, Second Party shall timely pay all employment, income, franchise, and other taxes due and owing by Second Party to all local, state, and federal entities. j. Second Party shall complete the project required by this agreement and shall provide the necessary staff and employees for the completion and performance of this agreement. Project Funding Agreement - Blue Bison Investments, LLC Page 3  k. Second Party shall timely and fully perform and comply with all terms and conditions of this agreement. l. Upon written request of CEDC Second Party shall notify CEDC in writing of substantial changes in the management of Second Party within seven (7) days. Substantial changes shall mean changes in executive officers, board members, or managers. m. The Second Party agrees that with regard to all programs and activities arising out of this agreement, the Second Party shall fully comply with all civil rights acts and specifically will not discriminate against any person upon the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, or by reason of being disabled. 7. The CEDC under the following circumstances and at the sole discretion of its board of directors may suspend the obligations under this agreement or may terminate this agreement without liability to the CEDC upon: a. The filing of bankruptcy proceedings or the appointment of a receiver of Second Party or any part of it’s assets or property and failure of such bankruptcy or receivership to be discharged within sixty (60) days of filing. b. The adjudication of Second Party as a bankrupt. c. A change in ownership of Second Party which constitutes a material change in the nature of Second Party’s business and operations. 8. Second Party agrees to the following reports and monetary requirements in connection with the project: a. Second Party shall provide periodic reports as requested by the CEDC. b. During normal business hours, Second Party shall allow a representative of the CEDC reasonable access to its books and records to verify compliance with this agreement. CEDC agrees to maintain the confidentiality of such records. Information shall be used only for the purpose of administering the funding provided by CEDC pursuant to this agreement and for no other purpose; provided however, CEDC may, if required by legal process or at the discretion of the office of the Attorney General provide such documentation to a third party as is required by the Attorney General or pursuant to such legal process. 9. Should Second Party fail to timely, fully, and completely comply with any one or more of the requirements, obligations, duties, terms, and conditions or warranties of this agreement such failure shall constitute an act of default by Second Party and, if not fully and completely cured within 60 days after written notice by CEDC to Second Party, the CEDC may terminate this agreement and pursue any legal remedies existing under the law; provided however, that Second Party’s liability under this agreement shall be limited to the immediate Project Funding Agreement - Blue Bison Investments, LLC Page 4 return by Second Party of all funds or other economic incentives provided by the CEDC and any consideration previously paid to Second Party by the CEDC. The rate of interest on all funds paid by the CEDC to Second Party subject to refund shall be 6% per annum from the date of default. In the event CEDC should prevail in any litigation to recover funds pursuant to this paragraph, the CEDC shall, in addition to all other damages provided by this paragraph, be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. 10. In the event of unforeseeable delays, in the performance of this agreement by Second Party, or force majeure, and upon a reasonable showing by Second Party that it has immediately and in good faith commenced and is diligently and continuously pursuing the correction, removal, or abatement of such delays by using its best efforts, CEDC may consent and excuse any such delay, which consent shall not be unreasonably conditioned or withheld. The failure by Second Party to continuously and diligently pursue compliance shall constitute an act of default. 11. Any delay by the CEDC in providing notice of default to Second Party, shall in no event be deemed or constitute a waiver of such default by CEDC or waiver of any of it’s rights and remedies available under this agreement or at law or in equity. 12. Any waiver provided by CEDC to Second Party of an act of default shall not be deemed to constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any other existing or future act of default by Second Party even if the act or default is of the same or a similar nature. 13. Second Party specifically agrees that CEDC shall only be liable to Second Party for the amount of money actually budgeted and committed to the project described in this agreement. CEDC shall not be liable or held responsible for any other direct or indirect costs, attorney’s fees, court costs, actual or consequential damages, direct or indirect, for any act of default by CEDC under the terms of this agreement. It is further stipulated and agreed that CEDC shall only be required to pay the amount of the project cost out of its sales tax revenues held and administered pursuant to the Development Corporation Act for the fiscal year in which the funding under this agreement is due together with unencumbered funds then on hand and from no other source. It is specifically agreed however, that in the event actual total sales tax revenues collected by CEDC for any year during which this agreement is to be performed should be less than the total amount of all grants to all contracting parties for that year, then in that event, CEDC shall fund projects in the order the grants were awarded after payment of CEDC’s usual administrative cost and expenses. All contracting parties shall receive only their share of the available sales tax revenue for that year, less CEDC’s customary and usual administrative costs and expenses and CEDC shall not be liable to any contracting party for any deficiency for that time or in the future. In the event of such revenue shortfall, CEDC will provide written notice to all contracting parties affected by the revenue shortfall along with such documentation as will allow the contracting party to ascertain their share of the funding to be provided. 14. This agreement incorporates the entire agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any oral or written previous and contemporaneous agreements between the parties relating to the matters covered by this agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, this agreement cannot be modified or amended without a written agreement of the parties.  15. No term or provision of this agreement or an act of the CEDC in the performance of this agreement shall be construed as making or constituting Second Party or its employees, or agents, partners of the CEDC or employees of the CEDC. This contract shall not benefit any third party not a direct party to this agreement. 16. The termination of this agreement as provided herein may be upon mutual agreement of the parties or pursuant to the provisions hereof relating to default. The termination of this agreement either by mutual agreement or by notice served by the CEDC shall extinguish all rights, duties, and obligations of the CEDC and Second Party except as provided herein. 17. This agreement may be executed in a number of identical counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original upon execution and shall constitute the same instrument. 18. This agreement is made pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas and shall be governed and interpreted under the laws of the State of Texas without regard to any conflict of laws provision. Venue in any litigation arising out of the execution or performance of this agreement shall be in the court of appropriate jurisdiction in Randall County, Texas and in no other Venue. Second Party, by signing this agreement, consents to and waives any objections to in personam jurisdiction in Randall County, Texas. 19. In the event one or more of the provisions contained in this agreement should, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this agreement. This agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had not been contained herein. 20. This agreement is subject to all legal requirements contained in the Municipal Charter of the City of Canyon and Code and Ordinances of the City of Canyon and all other applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Second Party agrees that, in compliance with this agreement, it will promptly comply with all applicable laws, regulations, orders, and rules of the state, city, and other governmental entities. 21. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors, and (where permitted) assigns. This agreement may not be assigned by either party without the specific prior written consent of the other, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned. Provided however, that in the event Second Party transfers all or substantially all it’s assets to another entity or merges with another entity to the extent that the underlying purpose of this agreement cannot, in the sole discretion of the CEDC’s board of directors, be accomplished, the CEDC shall have the option to suspend it’s performance under this agreement or terminate this agreement. 22. Second Party represents that no member of the board of directors of the CEDC or member of the governing body of the City of Canyon or any officer or employee of the City of Canyon or CEDC will be compensated in any manner with respect to directly or indirectly bringing the parties together for the purpose of this agreement or participation in the negotiation or formation of this agreement. No finders fee or other origination fee of any type will be paid or will become payable to any officer or employee of the City of Canyon, member of the governing body of the City of Canyon, or the governing body of the CEDC with regard to the formation or performance of this agreement. 23. All notices from one party to the other party required or permitted by this agreement shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail postage prepaid addressed to the party at the address shown on the signature page. All notices shall be deemed given on the date so delivered or deposited in the mail unless otherwise provided. Either party may change its address by sending written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided by this agreement. 24. All representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements of the parties as well as all rights and benefits of the parties pertaining to the transaction contemplated by this agreement shall survive the original execution date of this agreement and shall constitute continuing obligations. Effective Date:_____________________________ Second Party CANYON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BLUE BISON INVESTMENTS, LLC CORPORATION By: _________________________________ By:___________________________________ Randy Croslin, President/Chairman Stanley H. Ware Address: 1604 4th Avenue, Suite 25 Managing Member Canyon, Texas 79015  AGENDA To: Mayor and City Commission From: Dale Davis, Chief of Police Date: July 1, 2014 Re: Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Ordinance No. 979, an Ordinance of the City of Canyon, Texas to Restrict Chickens and Prohibit Fowl Within the City Limits of the City of Canyon, Texas. Ordinance No. 979 is directed at amending Chapter 91 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Canyon. Specific sections amended are 91.02 and 91.21. The amendments are directed at limiting the number chickens allowable and prohibiting fowl within the city limits. Numerous complaints in reference to chickens, and other fowl in residential areas, prompted the amendment of Chapter 91. The complaints received by citizens of this community, consisted of odors, excessive noise, and a significant increase in flies. A comprehensive review of ordinances around the state was conducted to determine if our request was in line with other municipalities. I learned from this study that chickens were allowed within city limits with restrictions. These ordinances specified a set number of allowable hens, confinement structures, and set back distances. I also was successful locating a clear definition of the meaning of fowl. The proposed amendments before you reflect the commonality of most ordinances that I researched. The amendments, although restrictive, allow chickens within the city limits. It is still my opinion that fowl, barnyard type animals, be prohibited within the city limits. It is my desire that the governing body of the City of Canyon approves and pass Ordinance No. 979. Respectfully, Dale Davis Chief of Police City of Canyon  ORDINANCE NO. 979 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 91 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CANYON, TEXAS SPECIFICALLY SECTION 91.02 AND SECTION 91.21 TO RESTRICT CHICKENS AND PROHIBIT FOWL WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CANYON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PRESCRIBING A PENALTY. WHEREAS, the passage, promulgation, and enforcement of the provisions herein contained are determined necessary and advisable for the promotion of the general welfare of the community to carry out the governmental powers and police powers delegated to and possessed by the City of Canyon; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CANYON, TEXAS; SECTION 91.01: Amendment to Definitions by adding as follows: FOWL.Birds commonly considered poultry and including, but not limited to turkeys, pheasant, quail, geese, guinea, peafowl, ducks, ostriches, emus, or similar feathered animals regardless of age, sex or breed, not including chickens. For purposes of this chapter, the term “fowl” shall not include canaries, parakeets, parrots, cockatiels or other birds commonly maintained in households within cages. SECURE ENCLOSURE. A pen, cage, container, structure or building, of sufficient strength and height to prevent the subject animal(s) from escaping there from. The enclosure must be free of defects, disrepair or any other deficiencies that would give rise to a reasonable conclusion that a dog or other animal would likely be able to escape as determined by the animal control authority. SECTION 1: Amendment to § 91.02 § 91.02 (C) shall be amended to read as follows: “All OTHER ANIMALS, with the exception of OTHER ANIMALS prohibited in Section 91.21, shall be confined to the premises of the owner or custodian of such other animals and it shall be unlawful for any person to allow such other animals to run or fly at large or go upon a premises of another person. No other animals shall be kept within front yard in a residential zone area.” SECTION 2.: Amendment to § 91.21 § 91.21 shall amend subsection (D) as follows: “Roosters, or any fowl capable of emitting a loud noise.” § 91.21 shall be amended to add subsection (E) as follows: “Fowl.” Subsection (D) of § 91.21 shall be redesignated “Subsection (F)”. § 91.21 shall amend subsection (F) by adding Sections (4) as follows: 1 (4) No more than 4 chickens per dwelling shall be allowed within the City Limits, and shall further be limited to single family residential zones only. (a) Chickens kept within the city limits shall be in a secure pen, coup or enclosure, and such structure shall be of such construction and strength to keep such animals from running at large, and shall be no closer than 50 feet from the nearest inhabited dwelling other than that of the owner. Native wildlife fowl within the parks of the City are hereby exempted. (b) The secure enclosure shall be maintained in a sanitary condition that does not allow excessive flies to breed and prevents the emission of odor or noise offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the neighborhood or the existence of a nuisance dangerous to the public health. (c) A fenced yard shall not qualify as a pen, coup, or hutch. (d) No chicken shall be kept within one hundred (100) feet of any private water well. SECTION 3: Severability. If any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause or the application of same to any person or set of circumstances for any reason is held to be unconstitutional, void or invalid or for any reason unenforceable, the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or the application thereby shall remain in effect, it being the intent of the City Commission of the City of Canyon, Texas in adopting this ordinance, that no portion thereof or provision contained herein shall become inoperative or fail by any reasons of unconstitutionality of any other portion or provision. SECTION 4: Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of conflict with this ordinance. SECTION 5: Publishing and Effective Date. This is a penal ordinance and will be effective upon its adoption and publication as required by law. INTRODUCED ON July 7, 2014, and PASSED AND ADOPTED ON July 7, 2014. ______________________________________ QUINN ALEXANDER, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ GRETCHEN MERCER, City Secretary 2  AGENDA To: Canyon City Commission From: Dale Davis Date: July 1, 2014 Re: Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Proposed Speed Hump Policy. Each year the City of Canyon is asked to install speed humps at various locations in town to slow traffic speeds. To date, there is no policy in place that provides any guidelines on the installation of speed humps. The policy before you includes many guidelines that were taken from speed hump policies I researched from Amarillo, Austin, San Antonio, and others. The policy presented at the last meeting has been amended in two ways. Sections F. and H. have been added for your consideration. I recommend that you approve the “Speed Hump” policy before you. Respectfully, Dale Davis Chief of Police City of Canyon  City of Canyon Speed Hump Policy The City of Canyon receives frequent complaints regarding speeding vehicles on residential streets. Residents in such areas are concerned about the potential for personal injury and property damage as a result of speeding traffic. Neighborhood groups often times see all-way stop controls as the best solution to reducing speeding and cut-through traffic problems. Unwarranted installations of this type of traffic control must be approached cautiously due to the disrespect of traffic signs. Enforcement of the speed limit by the Police Department is the most effective means for reducing speeds; however, limited resources do not allow such enforcement on a regular and permanent basis. To overcome these problems many cities are focusing on alternative neighborhood traffic control measures. Some such “traffic calming” devices include traffic circles, speed humps, diverters, and cul-de-sacs. These alternative traffic management measures have been effectively used to address residential area traffic problems in many cities. The City of Canyon recognizes the usefulness of alternative traffic control measures in solving neighborhood traffic problems. Working toward program objectives, this report focuses on speed hump installation on neighborhood streets experiencing frequent speeding problems. The speed hump program guidelines which are outlined provide a basis for establishing the installation criteria for speed humps. 1. General The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the application of speed humps, a relatively new approach to control vehicular traffic speeds along a roadway. A speed hump, or roadway undulation, is a gradual rise and fall of pavement surface across the width of the roadway. A speed hump differs from a speed “bump”, which is more abrupt. Due to gentle vehicle rocking, speed humps cause some driver discomfort and result in most vehicles slowing down at humps and between properly spaced successive humps. In order for speed hump installation to be effective, their provision should be in accordance with established transportation engineering criteria and documented facts. As is the case with all traffic control devices, proper installation will encourage compliance and safe driving practices. This policy provides criteria and procedures for installation of safe and effective speed humps. As this is a new program, the City of Canyon reserves the right to change any or all of the criteria and procedures in this guidelines if deemed necessary. 2. Eligibility Requirements All of the following criteria should be satisfied for a street to be considered eligible for speed hump installation. A. Initial Request for installation of Speed Humps The initial request for the installation of speed humps shall originate from a representative or the property owners on a segment of the street or neighborhood group. The request should be in writing and forwarded to the following address;  City of Canyon Street Department C/O Public Works Director 301 16th Street Canyon, Texas 79015 The City of Canyon Public Works Director and Chief of Police shall make a preliminary determination of eligibility. If it is determined that the street meets majority of the speed hump placement criteria, a more comprehensive study shall be conducted. 1. Street Department Responsibilities The City of Canyon street department shall collect traffic volume data over a 24 hour period. The Public Works director has the authority to authorize a transportation engineering study, if warranted. The Public Works director or his designate shall give written notice to the applicant representative if it is determined that the street is ineligible for speed humps. The notice shall outline the reasons for the ineligibility. 2. Police Department Responsibilities The police department shall conduct a speed study during specific time periods set by the Chief of Police. An analysis of traffic accidents shall be conducted by the Chief of Police or his designate. If the street is determined to be eligible for consideration for the installation of speed humps, the City staff shall define the petition area, speed hump locations, and the cost of installation. B. Petition 1. A petition from the residents and business owners documenting that at least two-thirds of all households and businesses adjacent to the project street support the installation of speed humps. 2. The petition area may be extended to include nearby streets, which may see an increase in traffic as a result of this project. This petition area will be determined by City staff. 3. Petition documents shall be supplied by the Public Works Director for the City of Canyon. 4. The petition should be mailed or hand delivered back to: City of Canyon Street Department C/O Public Works Director 301 16th Street Canyon, Texas 79015 C. Speed Hump Placement Criteria 1. The street shall provide access to abutting residential and/or commercial properties. Residential properties include multiple dwellings such as apartment complexes. 2. The street must be less than 40’ wide, and shall not have more than one traffic lane in each direction. 3. The street shall have a regulatory speed limit of 30 mph or less, as determined in accordance with the State Law. 4. The 85th percentile speed on the street section must be at least 35 mph or 5 mph over the regulatory speed limit. 5. The speed humps should not be located in a horizontal curve, on vertical curves where visibility of the hump is restricted, or on the approaches to these curves. 6. The street shall have curb and gutter. 7. The longitudinal street grade is less than or equal to 5%. 8. Speed hump installation should not cause excessive diversion of traffic to other residential streets. 9. The street must be “primarily residential” with at least two-thirds of the affected street frontage being in a residential zoning district. 10. Speed humps will not be permitted on any Collector, Minor arterial, principal arterial streets, or alleys. 11. The street should not be a primary emergency response route as determined by the Fire Chief. 12. The speed hump, traffic control device, installation must be approved by the Chief of Police. If the operational and geometric requirements for eligibility are not met, the street will not be considered for speed humps and the requester(s) will be notified by the public works department. D. Speed Hump Location A speed hump shall not be located in front of a property, if the occupant objects to its placement or, in the case of multiple dwellings, if majority of the households on the property object to its placement. If possible, humps should be located on property lines rather than directly in front of a residence. 1. A speed hump should not be located in front of a driveway or within an intersection.  2. Speed humps should not be located within 250 feet of a traffic signal, or within 150 feet of an intersection. 3. Speed humps should not be located over, or contain, manholes, valve boxes, or located within 100 feet of a fire hydrant. 4. For humps located near drainage inlets, the hump should be placed just downstream of the inlet. If this is not feasible, special treatment should be considered for drainage. 5. Speed humps will usually be placed between 200 ft. to 400 ft. apart. Other spacing may be used based upon engineering judgment. 6. On single short blocks (300 ft. to 500 ft.) a single hump positioned near mid-point is usually sufficient. 7. On single blocks of moderate length (500 ft to 1000 ft.) a two hump configuration is usually adequate. 8. On very long blocks (1000 ft. to 1600 ft.) three or more humps may be necessary. 9. On lengthy continuous street segments or for humps provided over a series of blocks, interior humps may be placed 200 ft. to 400 ft. apart. E. Design, Construction, and Maintenance Design standards and installation procedures for speed humps and related features such as signs and pavement markings shall be prepared by the City of Canyon public works department. The street department will maintain the speed humps and all related features. 1. Only the circular speed hump design will be allowed. The circular speed hump will be 12 feet long and have the cross-section of a segment of a circle with a maximum height of 4.0 inches at the center.  2. On streets with barrier curbs, humps should extend fully across the road from the toe of the curb to the toe of curb. 3. A detail/cross section of the typical speed hump design is shown in figure 1. F. Cost of Installation The residents adjacent to the eligible street shall be financially responsible for the cost of the speed hump installation. Once a street is approved for speed hump installation, the City of Canyon public works department will submit a statement to the applicant’s representative for the cost of the speed hump installation. Upon receipt of payment of the cost, the humps will be installed as scheduling permits. Residences shall not bear any financial responsibility to install speed humps, signs or other traffic control devices, if the action is initiated by the City of Canyon. G. Speed Hump Removal and Alterations The process for speed hump alterations or removal requested by the residents is the same as the process for installation. The residents adjacent to the street containing the speed humps, shall be financially responsible for the removal cost. A petition documenting that at least two-thirds of the households and businesses adjacent to the speed hump street are in favor of the speed hump removal, will be required. In case the City of Canyon determines that an unforeseen problem exists due to the hump, it may be redesigned or removed by the City. In such case, the City of Canyon will bear the full cost of speed hump removal or modification. H. Final Authority The Chief of Police shall have full and final authority to make the decision on the installation or removal of speed humps, based on the criteria established within this Policy. No appeal process is provided for within this Policy.  AGENDA To: Mayor and City Commission From: Jon Behrens, Assistant to City Manager for Special Projects Date: July 7, 2014 Re: Update on Space Utilization Study The Space Utilization Study being conducted by Lavin Architecture continues to move forward. City Staff has met with the Lavin firm on multiple occasions. We have met with the Lavin staff twice since you were last updated on this projects status. • June 10 – Lavin staff met with Randy Criswell, Chris Sharp, and Jon Behrens to review drawings for the fire station. Lavin also presented plans for the Courthouse from Tere O’Connell which have the Civic Complex offices moving into the Courthouse. Tere participated via phone. Randy expressed his concerns related to space utilization and shared his previous conversations related to the degree of restoration the City would be willing to carryout in the Courthouse. Lavin presented their preliminary fire station drawings. • June 16 & 17 – Jon Behrens met with Code Enforcement, Police Department, Business Office, and Public Works to review plans from June 10 meeting. Departments were given the opportunity to provide input related to these plans. • June 19 – Chris Sharp and Jon Behrens met with Lavin staff to share departmental comments related to the June 10 plans. Lavin provided new plans from Tere and also plans that they had created for the Courthouse based on previous comments. • July 7 – Lavin was asked to present an update to the Commission. At this time there are multiple options being studied by Lavin related to the Space Utilization Study. City staff will continue to meet regularly with Lavin staff and begin to narrow the number of space options being discussed at this time. We are quickly moving out of the “what could we do” and into the “what can we do” discussions. Once we have narrowed the number of possible scenarios, Lavin will begin working on the cost estimation phase of this project. I believe that we have covered a great deal of ground over the past few months and that our process has been very through. Should you have any questions related to our process I will be happy to answer them. City of Canyon  AGENDA To: Randy Criswell, City Manager From: Dan Reese, Public Works Director Date: July 1, 2014 Re: Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Request for Additional Staff and Equipment for the Addition of WTAMU Facilities to Solid Waste Services. Back in 2004-2005, the decision was made by WTAMU to relieve the City of all solid waste collection services for their facilities, as they were going to do their own trash collection. This March, we were approached by WTAMU and SSC Solutions (WT’s facilities management contractor) about the possibility of the City taking back the responsibility of being WT’s solid waste collector. Since city ordinance does not allow outside, private contractors to provide these types of services, we are their only option for solid waste collection. After a couple of meetings, we sent WT/SSC a cost estimate for providing these services. This correspondence evolved into a scope of work being generated. After revising the scope of work and another meeting with them two weeks ago to discuss the revision, it has become very apparent that we will be resuming trash collection for WT. As it stands now, SSC is working with WT administration to get the scope approved so that we can move forward. They would like to see us up and running by the time the fall semester begins. From the beginning, it was evident that WT/SSC wanted out of the trash collection business. We began planning for the solid waste division to take this service back almost immediately. Taking this service back means we basically have to add another commercial route to our collection, as providing them service will consume the better part of a day, five days a week. As it exists today, they’re collecting waste with their own trucks and roll-out containers, similar to what we use in Hunsley Hills. On average, they empty about 300 containers per day. Some facilities are dumped once per day some require multiple dumps. This is why it becomes nearly an all day job. We are working with them to use a few of our regular dumpsters, where we can, especially at the off-campus facilities, to improve efficiency. This may be handled by one of our other routes, we’ll just have to get into the project, see how it goes, and make adjustments as needed. City of Canyon  AGENDA Adding a complete route to our operation will require hiring an additional driver and the purchase of another rear loading truck to handle their roll-outs. There is no way we can provide service to WT with our existing equipment and manpower. Due to the growth we’ve experienced over the last few years, we’re almost to the point of adding another route to our solid waste collection. From this perspective, had we kept the WT service back in 2004, we would be to the point of adding another route anyway. Financially, adding this route will require approximately $172,000 for a new truck (to be purchased from the equipment fund and amortized over 10 years), about $52,000 per year for another employee (including benefits), and approximately $35,000 per year in fuel and landfill fees. I realize and understand that this isn’t our normal mode of operation, without some form of agreement or written commitment from WT/SSC, and I also know this all came on us pretty quickly, but we really need to act now. This operation is going to happen. The operating agreement with WT/SSC will be in the works, momentarily. Bobby Stennett has done an excellent job in ironing out all of the details and exploring what we believe is all of our options. We are very fortunate to have found a truck that meets our specs and perfectly matches the rest of the fleet. It is currently available for a Buyboard purchase. We would need to make some very minor additions to the equipment on the truck (add “tippers”). It is possible to take delivery on it in 3-4 weeks. If we don’t act now on this truck, it will take 4-5 months to have one built and delivered. We explored leasing, thinking we would have to wait for one to be built, anyway. Leasing is no good, either. A lease runs $ 6,500 / month, plus another $ 4,000 to have it delivered and returned. As far as staff, Bobby has already started exploring those options, as well. In a perfect world, we would hire one of the drivers currently running the route for WT/SSC, as this could help minimize our training time, as well as having someone already familiar with the WT/SSC current operation and route. We have contacted everyone involved and made them aware of our intentions, without objection. Luckily, everything seems to be falling into place at the right time, if we can get permission to move forward. The public works department recommends that the City Commission approve the additional personnel and equipment to the commercial solid waste division so that service to WTAMU may be provided. City of Canyon  AGENDA To: Mayor and City Commission From: Randy Criswell, City Manager Date: July 7, 2014 Re: Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Meeting Dates for July. We need to discuss what days would be a possibility for you for our annual all-day budget work session. We would suggest sometime the last week of July. Right now we’ll be meeting on July 7 and July 21 for regular meeting dates, and I would like to meet once more the last week of July for the budget work day. City of Canyon  July 2014 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  August 2014 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31