LOCAL GOVERNMENT
By Will McDaniel and Jeff Rottman
After attending the town hall meetings for councilmembers Harry Thomas and Tommy Heibert, the Concho Observer can report that the meetings did not go how everyone was expecting.
In questioning attendees, we found several who said they were expecting a more traditional town hall format, with a dedicated question-and-answer time, but it seems the city had other ideas.
Format Inspired Little Questioning
The town hall with Harry Thomas in Single Member District 3 was attended by around 50, including around a dozen city staff.
Our correspondent at the Heibert town hall reports that it was sparsely attended, with few more in the audience other than city staff.
The town hall began with an introduction by the city manager, followed the council members taking the podium for an introduction of their own.
Harry Thomas, in his plain-spoken fashion, introduced himself and described some of his experiences that have led him to work on city council, including his work for Goodyear Tires, his roles in numerous organizations, and his decade on the city council.
After he was finished, he turned the microphone over to city manager Phil Urrutia.
A large portion of the 90-minute town hall consisted of a “brief” presentation by new city manager Phil Urrutia on recent developments in the city.
When the recording from the town hall was transcribed using Microsoft Word, the time difference was illustrated, as Thomas’ introduction totaled around 400 words, and took only a few minutes to deliver while Urrutia’s presentation totaled more than 10,000 words and took up the bulk of the recording.
The presentation focused on the progress made at council over the last six months.
Urrutia’s Presentation
The city manager talked about new developments at the fire department; the first local swift water rescue team, and the need for a new fire station.
(It’s noteworthy that this presentation marked the first reference of the scientifically proven reality of climate change by a city official that this reporter has heard in local government, though Urrutia did not refer to it as such, instead referencing “changing weather patterns” while illustrating the need for a dedicated local swift water response team.)
He said that the city has acquired land in southwest San Angelo that will serve as the new fire station location and discussed improvements to police and emergency service technologies, noting that the city’s new Aviation and Real Time Information Center (ARTIC) which uses rapid response drones, are now being used by the fire department to locate the exact locations and nature of fires.
He shared more information about improvements at the police department, improvements to the river stage and several other topics.
Remarks by Councilman Thomas
Harry Thomas is the most experienced city council member, known for offering gentle but conservative counsel during meetings.
He was challenged this year by a citizens coalition formed to oppose data center development, who initiated recall campaigns against him saying that council members did not take their concerns about data centers seriously during proceedings to establish data center zoning guidelines; inspired in part after the councilman addressed the group from the dais to clarify the purpose of an executive session.
The recall campaign was successful, and voters in SMD-3 will decide on Election Day if Thomas should remain as councilman.
The mayor has already expressed massive doubts about the group, inquiring of the city attorney if libel or slander cases could be made against the coalition or its members for what he characterized as misinformation.
If Thomas is voted out, his position would be filled by a temporary appointment until 2027, when the next regular election for that district is scheduled to take place.
Some have already expressed interest in appointing Thomas to serve out the remainder of his term should the recall challenge succeed.
Thomas said after the meeting: “I’ve been doing this city council thing for a long time… the reason I became a councilman in the first place was to serve, I believe in servant leadership. I’ve been in working with non-profits for 40 years, and every time you’re in one of those roles, you’re there to serve whatever the mission is, and help the people on that particular board.
“Somebody asked me not to long ago why I became a city councilman. I wanted to expand what I could do for people. You’re limited if you’re on one of these non-profit boards…
“You start working for 100,000 people. I’ve got a son, and two granddaughters who live here in this town…there’s a lot of people that depend on me to make a decision to continue their way of life in this town.”
Thomas spent the rest of the meeting, about 30 minutes, talking with residents. Mayor Tom Thompson spent time visiting with attendees and listening to their concerns.
After discussing a matter with one group, the mayor waved over the city’s director of operations to better answer their questions, and the format continued in that manner.
The mayor also discussed other hot button topics with residents, such as the city’s purchase and use of Flock cameras. Which you can read more about here.
Summing Up
The format was more of an introduction for the new city manager than a town hall dedicated to answering constituent questions for all to hear. While it could be a good model for getting city staff in touch with residents, the event was not as effective as it could have been.
This is, after all, only the first round of town halls in this format.
After the presentation, city staff and the councilmen milled about talking with constituents, although it seemed many of the interactions were more conversational than inquisitive.
While the presentation was informative, highlighting many points of progress the city has made over the last six months, it dodged discussing more controversial matters, and saved talk about a proposed right-of-way use fee until almost the end, which seemed to leave a bitter taste among attendees.
You can read more about that fee here.
Facing a budget shortfall and having a higher property-tax rate than similar cities, San Angelo will impose a $15 monthly fee on residential properties, with higher charges for business property owners, starting in the new fiscal year.
In the presentation, city officials say the fee will establish a dedicated fund for road repair and staffing. They calculate that San Angelo has 1,200 lane miles to maintain, and that other cities impose the same type of fee, such as Abilene, Killeen, Fort Worth, El Paso, and Taylor.
Urrutia stressed that the city will not be increasing property tax rates for the upcoming fiscal year budget will which will start on October 1st. The new fee would be added to all residential and business municipal services statements, like water bills.
So far, residents have shown little opposition to the move outside of social media.
Future Town Hall Meetings
The next town hall meeting will be held Thursday evening from 6 to 7:30 pm at Sierra Vista Methodist Church, located at 4522 College Hills Blvd.
The following meetings will be:
District 4 with Patrick Keely – Sept. 1 at Calvary Baptist Fellowship, 2401 Armstrong St. at 6:30 p.m.
District 6 with Mary Coffey – Sept. 2 at The Heights Church, 4512 Sherwood Way
District 5: Karen Hesse Smith – Sept. 14 at Holy Angels Catholic Church, 2309 S. A&M Ave.
District 2 with Joe Self – Sept. 15 at Lakeview Baptist Church, 4825 Grape Creek Road
Anyone is invited to attend any of the meetings.
All budget data is online at: sanangelo.gov/Budget
1 Comment
FORMAL NOTICE OF SOLICITATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE SERVICES THROUGH CITY ORDINANCE
To: City of San Angelo, Texas
City Manager
City Attorney
Stormwater Operations Division
Code Compliance Division
Risk Management
Re: City-Owned Right-of-Way Adjoining My Residence
This notice concerns the City-owned right-of-way adjoining my residential property and the City’s requirement that I maintain that property.
The City of San Angelo owns the right-of-way between my private property line and the street. I make no claim of ownership to that land.
At the same time, the City requires property owners and tenants to maintain grass, weeds, and vegetation to the curb or street edge, without distinguishing between privately owned property and City-owned right-of-way lying within that area.
The City’s published Code Compliance guidance states:
“Property owners and/or tenants are responsible for maintaining property to the curb or street edge and to the middle of the alley, the width of the property.”
Accordingly, where City-owned right-of-way lies between a private property line and the curb or street edge, the City’s maintenance requirement compels the adjoining resident to maintain City property.
Failure to perform that maintenance is not merely a private choice. The City treats excessive grass, weeds, and related conditions as code violations and maintains enforcement and abatement procedures for failure to comply.
The City also separately identifies right-of-way maintenance and mowing as functions of its Stormwater Operations Division.
The City’s own published materials therefore establish the following:
1. The City owns the right-of-way.
2. The City identifies right-of-way maintenance and mowing as municipal functions.
3. The City nevertheless requires adjoining residents to maintain vegetation to the curb or street edge, including City-owned right-of-way.
4. Failure to perform that maintenance exposes the resident to City code-enforcement and abatement procedures.
5. When the City performs mowing through its abatement process, the City assigns a monetary value to that service.
The City has now announced its intention to impose a recurring $15 monthly residential right-of-way charge beginning with the new fiscal year.
That creates a direct issue requiring resolution.
The City proposes to charge residents because of the existence and use of City-owned right-of-way adjoining their homes, while at the same time requiring those residents to provide uncompensated maintenance of that same City-owned property.
NOTICE THAT FUTURE GRATUITOUS MAINTENANCE WILL END
This document is not an invoice and does not seek payment for services previously performed.
I am instead providing the City with approximately one full year of advance notice to determine how it intends to address maintenance of its own right-of-way.
During that notice period, I will continue performing the maintenance required by the City without seeking compensation.
That notice period will give the City ample opportunity to review its ordinances and maintenance requirements, determine the respective responsibilities of the City and adjoining residents, arrange staffing and work schedules, assign the work to the appropriate City department, relieve me in writing of any obligation to maintain the City-owned portion, or otherwise resolve the matter.
The City therefore cannot reasonably claim that it lacked notice, lacked time to act, or lacked an opportunity to perform the work itself.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF COMPENSATED SERVICES
Beginning October 1, 2027, if the City has not begun maintaining the City-owned right-of-way itself, relieved me in writing of the requirement to maintain the City-owned portion, or otherwise resolved the matter in writing, I will regard the City’s continued enforcement of its maintenance requirement, combined with its continued refusal or failure to perform the maintenance itself after approximately one year of advance notice, as solicitation through City ordinance of my maintenance services.
At that point, any maintenance I perform upon City-owned right-of-way will not be volunteered, gratuitous, or unsolicited.
It will be performed because the City owns the property, the City requires the maintenance to be performed, the City has been expressly notified that I will not continue performing the service indefinitely without compensation, the City has been given approximately one year to assume the work itself, the City has chosen not to do so, and I remain subject to City enforcement if the required maintenance is not performed.
COMPENSATION BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2027
Beginning October 1, 2027, if I remain required to perform maintenance upon City-owned right-of-way under those circumstances, I will seek compensation of $20 per month.
That amount will consist of $15 per month for right-of-way maintenance services, corresponding to the recurring residential right-of-way charge the City proposes to impose, plus $5 per month for reasonable administrative and overhead costs associated with documenting, accounting for, and administering the service.
Use of the $15 figure does not constitute agreement that the City’s proposed right-of-way charge is lawful, valid, properly characterized as a fee, or correctly calculated.
Nor does the $20 amount waive any right to establish a different reasonable value for services actually performed.
COST OF THE NOTICE PERIOD
By delaying compensated maintenance until October 1, 2027, I am giving the City approximately one year to resolve this issue before any compensation is sought.
If the City’s proposed $15 monthly right-of-way charge becomes effective October 1, 2026, I will have paid approximately $180 in right-of-way charges during that one-year notice period while continuing, without compensation, to maintain City-owned property as required by the City.
That period is intentionally provided so the City has more than adequate time to determine whether it wishes to maintain its own property rather than continue requiring me to provide the service.
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO AVOID ANY FUTURE CLAIM
The City may avoid any future claim for compensation before October 1, 2027 by beginning to maintain its own right-of-way, providing written confirmation that I am not required to maintain the City-owned portion and will not be subjected to citation, enforcement, abatement charges, lien-related consequences, or other adverse action for declining to maintain it, or reaching another written resolution concerning maintenance and compensation.
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN RESPONSE
If the City disputes any portion of this notice, please identify in writing:
1. Who owns the right-of-way between my private property line and the curb or street edge.
2. The ordinance or other legal authority requiring me to maintain vegetation upon City-owned right-of-way.
3. Whether I may cease maintaining the City-owned portion without citation, enforcement, abatement, charge, lien-related consequence, or other adverse action.
4. Which City department is responsible for right-of-way maintenance and mowing.
5. Whether that department will assume maintenance of the City-owned right-of-way adjoining my property.
6. The legal basis upon which the City contends that it may require a resident to provide uncompensated maintenance services upon City-owned property.
7. The legal basis and calculation supporting the proposed $15 monthly residential right-of-way charge.
8. Why the City assigns monetary value to the resident’s relationship with the right-of-way for purposes of imposing a recurring charge, while assigning no corresponding value to maintenance services the resident is required to provide upon that same City-owned property.
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
The purpose of this notice is to create a clear record before any compensated maintenance begins.
It establishes that the City owns the property, requires the maintenance, has been expressly informed that I will not provide the service gratuitously indefinitely, is being given approximately one year to assume the work itself, and has a clear opportunity to avoid any future claim for compensation.
If the City nevertheless continues after October 1, 2027 to require me to maintain its property while declining to perform the maintenance itself, I will treat that continuing arrangement as solicitation through City ordinance of the maintenance service I am required to provide.
Nothing in this notice waives any challenge to the City’s proposed right-of-way charge, any contention concerning the City’s maintenance obligations, or any other right or remedy available under Texas law.
Sincerely,
Thorne T. Campbell