Agenda Request

	City Council
	Agenda Request
Agenda Of:	03-16-10	Agenda Request No:		iii-o
Initiated By:	linda drapp, administrative Secretary	Responsible Department:		City Secretary
Presented By:	Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary	Department Head:		Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary
		Additional Department. Head (s):		N/A
Subject / Proceeding:	Minutes City Council Meeting march 02, 2010 Approve Minutes
Exhibits:	Minutes march 02, 2010
Clearances			Approval
Legal:	N/A		Executive Director:	N/A
Purchasing:	N/A		Asst. City Manager:	N/A
Budget:	N/A		City Manager:	Allen Bogard
Budget
Expenditure Required: $			N/A
Current Budget: $			N/A
Additional Funding: $			N/A
Recommended Action
Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting March 02, 2010.
Exhibits

STATE OF TEXAS	§
COUNTY OF FORT BEND	§
CITY OF SUGAR LAND	§

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

tuesday, march 02, 2010

REGULAR MEETING

The City Council of the City of Sugar Land convened in a regular meeting open to the public and pursuant to notice thereof duly given in accordance with Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, as amended, in Sugar Land City Hall within said City on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 at 3:30 o'clock P.M. and the roll was called of the members; to wit:

James A. Thompson, Mayor

Thomas Abraham, Council Member at Large, Position One

Jacqueline Baly Chaumette, Council Member at Large, Position Two

Donald L. Smithers, Council Member District One

Donald G. Olson, Council Member District Two

Russell C. Jones, Council Member District Three

Michael S. Schiff, Council Member District Four

QUORUM PRESENT

All of said members were present.

Also present were:

Allen Bogard, City Manager

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

Joe Morris, City Attorney, and

A Number of Visitors

CONVENE MEETING

Mayor James Thompson convened the session, open to the public, to order at 3:30 o’clock P.M.

workshop

budget

Mayor Thompson introduced discussion on budget.

Ms. Jennifer Brown, Budget and Research Director, stated staff will identify the current economic situation, corrective actions for the remaining Fiscal Year 2010, and discuss planning for the Fiscal Year 2011 budget assumptions.

When staff was preparing the budget last year, City was insulated from the economic downturn that had begun the prior Fall; although there was a drop-off in sales tax, adjustments were made in Fiscal Year 2008 ending projections and Fiscal Year 2009 budget. Staff was conservative going into the budget, anticipating there would be a slowdown in growth and sales tax. The budget was built around zero percent growth in sales tax for Fiscal Year 2010 over the Fiscal Year 2009 projections; staff had anticipated increases in incentive sales tax collections. Interest rates were declining.

There has been a strong sales tax growth over the city history; going back to 1982, there has not been a decline in sales tax growth. In Fiscal Year 2009, an increase of 1.7 percent over the prior year is the smallest increase.

In Fiscal Year 2010 sales tax growth, there was a significant decrease in incentive collections due to one purchasing company terminating the agreement. In incentive agreements, City agrees to pay out a percentage of those back to the companies. In the first two months, there was positive growth. Over the last three months there were large decreases compared to the prior year, which is attributed to last year’s inflated numbers because of Hurricane Ike recovery; and in December there was a large decline in home repair stores, but the decline is tapering off. Currently, the city is net of the incentive payments to the participants and is running approximately 4 percent under budget for the first five months of the fiscal year.

Fiscal Year 2010 outlook: Staff anticipates that sales tax will continue at current trends through fiscal year and have factored in 5 percent under budget for the total sales tax collections for the remainder of the year, and anticipating that interest earnings will be below budget, fines and forfeitures down, and permit revenues down. The potential impact of the revenue declines net of the savings seen from not having to pay out the incentive agreements indicates $2.3 million impact to the General Fund if spending continues at the current levels.

In 2002, City Council adopted Financial Management Policy Statements that identify corrective actions to be taken in the event of a potential operating deficit. The actions are targeted so that implementation could occur mid-year or in preparation of the next year budget and the actions are in order of preference of implementation: reduce transfers for PAYG CIP, deferral of capital purchases, expenditure reductions, hiring freeze, and freeze merit increases. The corrective actions will be used in guiding strategies for the remainder of this year and for preparing next year’s budget.

The strategy in General Fund is to end the Fiscal Year 2010 at the budgeted balance and offset reduction in revenues by reducing transfers for Pay-As-You-Go CIP funding, reduce departmental expenditures without impacting service levels, and maintain the hiring freeze.

Impact on Capital Projects as part of the planned debt issuance: No debt had been issued in Fiscal Year 2009, and there were plans to issue a large amount of debt this year; first portion of the debt was issued in November. There is $30 million in projects that are still budgeted. Staff is evaluating and assessing current projects to determine prioritization of needs and funding sources, operating impact of planned projects, potential to defer some projects, and assess capacity and impact of 2010 debt issuance. Staff will bring a recommendation back to Council at the March workshop.

Fiscal Year 2010 Debt Service Fund: Because staff had anticipated issuing all the debt this year and put off sale of the debt until later this year, there will be savings in budgeted debt service payments that will not have to be paid. This will offset the reduction in the Debt Service Fund of interest earnings and transportation fees that will not be received due to slowdown in development at Riverstone. Staff will review the Debt Service Fund and assess the impact from the planned debt issuance to ensure that year will end as planned.

Fiscal Year 2010 Utility Fund: Anticipate revenues about 3 percent under budget based on year to date rainfall; budget reductions to end the year at projected balances. Staff recommends implementing the same operating budget reductions in the Utility Fund as in the General Fund where there would be targeted reductions based on historical savings from the operating budget and freezing vacant positions. The Utility Fund is dependent on weather fluctuations; should a drought occur in the next few months, revenues will pick up so the reductions in the Utility Fund would not be implemented.

Mayor Thompson inquired about the criteria used to re-prioritize the CIP projects; staff stated the Engineering Department has created a prioritization that evaluates each project against the six City goals and ranks the projects based on how many goals are met, deficiencies, new project, or related to growth. If a contract has already been awarded, the project will not be put on the deferral list. Staff is evaluating several projects that have been delayed due to outside forces, and are not planning to bring forward any construction contracts until after the Council workshop. There are projects that could potentially be shelved.

City Manager Bogard stated he would like to determine what the city has saved over what was budgeted on projects where construction contracts were let at a lower cost than what was anticipated, and would like to pull down the debt issuance amount as low as possible that was planned for later this year. Some projects may make sense to defer at this point; the ones of the most concern now will be projects that have a large operating expense, which would create a problem for the operating budget next year; there are not many of those. Staff will review the whole CIP, do a mid-year review and identify where we stand, and come forward with a plan. Staff will bring the results back to City Council in a workshop and ask for Council direction.

Council Member Schiff stated this is with the assumption that we need to do anything at all because many of the capital projects come in materially below budget due to the cost of material, labor, and the way contractors are currently bidding.

City Manager Bogard stated the real challenge is predicting what will happen with the tax base over the next 2-3 years; the city could either afford to move forward with the CIP as currently written, or the city cannot afford to do anything. There are jobs out for bid currently; nothing has been delayed, and nothing will be affected in the next 30 days.

Staff stated that one project was delayed for two weeks.

Mayor Thompson requested a personnel staffing report on showing authorized positions, unfilled positions, and current vacancies.

Assumptions for Fiscal Year 2011 Budget: Approaching the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, staff is taking a conservative approach to revenues. Using the 5 percent projection under budget for sales tax for remainder of this year, staff is currently anticipating zero growth the next year based on those figures. Property values and corresponding tax revenues will play a key role in development of next year’s budget. It is not anticipated there will be a change in the total tax rate, although in the last 5-year forecast, the need to reallocate ½ cent from debt to operations was identified. At this time, staff is anticipating growth in the tax roll from new values including River Park annexation and new development, but there will be little or no revaluation on existing properties; low interest earnings will continue into next year.

The impact of the assumptions depends on the magnitude/length of assumed downturn; with the projections coming in under budget, it is unknown how long that will continue, but anticipate over an 18- month period and may recover prior to that time. Commercial revaluation is the big factor; in ad valorem assumptions for next year’s budget, staff is anticipating from zero to even negative growth, and 5 percent reduction in commercial with no growth in residential values. Staff reviewed the last 10 years, and the ad valorem values have grown an average of 7-1/2 percent, and average residential revaluation from 2003-2008 was 3.8 percent.

Potential Impact of Fiscal Year 2011 Assumptions: a) Reduced funding for Pay-As-You-Go CIP; 2) reduced departmental expenditures, no capacity for O&M impact from CIP, alternative implementation of services; 3) continue freeze on vacant positions; and 4) no merit increases for employees.

Fiscal Year 2011 Revenues: Prior forecast showed rate increases on utility rates in October 2010 and solid waste rates in March 2011. Staff is now assuming no increases in Fiscal Year 2011 on total tax rate, utility rates, and solid waste rates.

Regarding the capital projects, staff will review current projects and return to Council with a recommendation in March, and the 5-Year CIP for 2011-2015 currently under development will be discussed during budget workshops.

senior center expansion phase ii

Mayor Thompson introduced discussion on options for Senior Center Expansion Phase II.

Mr. Jim Browne, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented a brief overview stating at the December 2009 City Council workshop meeting, plans for the Senior Recreation Center expansion and future demands for Senior Adult leisure services in our community were discussed. Council requested options for providing space for Senior Citizens Center services and Parks and Recreation Department offices.

Annual participation rates at the Senior Center have increased from 3,216 in Fiscal Year 1995 to 31,521 in Fiscal Year 2009. Demographic data indicates that about 31 percent of the entire Sugar Land population is in the age 50 and over category which is anticipated to increase to 36 percent by 2014.

The Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) Master Plan highlighted the expansion of the Senior Center as a high priority, and recommended the expansion between 2005 and 2015. The 2005 capital cost estimates were $750,000 to $2.5 million with annual operating estimate of $350,000. The Master Plan recommends one square foot of indoor recreational space per citizen; the standard includes recreation centers and senior centers.

The Senior Center Phase II expansion was scheduled for design in Fiscal Year 2009, construction scheduled for Fiscal Year 2011. The preliminary estimate was $950,000 at that time in the CIP which is currently unfunded. Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was conducted to assess the building and estimate costs (repairs and build-out), and PER covered roof, MEP, accessibility, fire sprinkler, parking, and other issues in addition to design. Various areas to be impacted include: senior area that was expanded and renovated; ADA improvements, vehicular access and parking improvements, outdoor recreation area for seniors, renovation to office area for Parks and Recreation Department. Results of that effort identified approximately $300,000 in MEP work, $500,000 allocated for mold containment and roof work, totaling $800,000. Facilities CIP funding had $300,000 available that could be applied for the funding, leaving $500,000 shortfall for repairs and deficiencies. The PER identified $700,000 for the expansion component for a base build-out; alternate rear patio area $80,000; parking lot improvements $25,000; security system $65,000; totaling $870,000 for expansion costs.

At the January 2010 Council workshop, staff proposed three options: 1) Address and contain current mold issue and correct deficiencies without Senior Center/PARD expansion using $300,000 from Facilities CIP budget: estimated at $800,000; 2) Proceed with Option #1, design expansion, and allocate $870,000 for construction of Senior Center/PARD facility in Fiscal Year 2011: estimated at $1.67 million; 3) Proceed with Option #1 and bring back alternatives that City Council would prefer: estimated at $800,000.

City Council direction included: Evaluate other options to determine if there is a preferable alternative; research the availability and cost associated with converting vacant “big box” spaces; evaluate vacant spaces in existing city facilities; and assess currently available lease spaces in the city for cost and suitability for use as Senior Citizen Center space and/or PARD offices.

Staff planning priorities and objectives include: Provide same level of service the seniors would receive in proposed expansion with regard to programs, space, furnishings, and finishes; if relocation is required, attempt to relocate Senior Center in same general vicinity to best serve highest concentration and most convenient access for senior population residences, north of U.S. 59 and east of Highway 6; recognize the demographic demands and increased service level expectations that will occur due to the growing senior population; evaluate and recommend “interim” 5-10 year solution that can bridge service gap until able to plan and finance optimal Senior Citizen facility to meet future demand; eliminate any relocation options that preclude a “best practices” optimal long term solution or require additional relocations in the interim; consolidate PARD staff in one location if possible.

Staff researched currently available suggested and potential sites, and collected lease cost information, space availability, and geographic locations. Fourteen currently available lease sites were evaluated in addition to the three “big box” sites. Sizes ranged from 3,800 to 16,000 square feet, and the big box sites were more than 29,000 to 30,000 square feet. Lease rates ranged from $12-$23 plus NNN which covers insurance, maintenance, and taxes and typically have about 30 percent impact on lease rate. Size, location, ease of access, lease rate, condition of buildings and build-out costs varied greatly.

Staff selected (3) options: 1) Renovate the Senior Center Expansion/PARD for $1.67 million; 2) Existing City space: Senior Center relocation to Community Center for $1.08 million; relocate PARD to Fire Administration or City Hall for $200,000; 3) Private sector lease: Site that provided the best fit regarding location, size, cost was Imperial II facility for $2.86 million; a 5-year cost that broke down to approximately $304,000 a year at lease, about $1.34 million in build-out.

Staff requested further direction from City Council based on additional research provided regarding preferred options, and revisit financing/funding options in context of 2011-2015 CIP discussions in the upcoming weeks and months.

Council Member Jones asked if the private sector options were all lease options. Staff stated there were four sale options identified; range of cost was $2 million to $3.5 million on the purchase, and using same factor in build-out based on the square footage it could be anywhere from $1.1 million to $1.5 million above that depending on size of facility. The “for sale” options fell into that range as well.

Council discussion ensued on other property options, and staff indicated that most of the larger boxes were not interested in subdividing.

City Manager Bogard asked if there was any additional information that staff could provide City Council.

Council Member Schiff asked staff to provide information on the range and average age of seniors using the Center.

Council Member Jones commented he would like to see more information on the purchase options.

Mayor Thompson asked staff about spending additional funds on the current facilities. Staff stated they were hoping leasing options would provide favorable results and feels the consideration merits further discussion.

Mayor Thompson stated he would rather build a new facility for a Senior Center.

Council discussion ensued regarding the existing facility that was renovated in Fiscal Year 2007 and whether it would last for another five years. Staff stated the mold issue would need to be addressed.

Ms. Sereniah Breland, Support Services Director, stated that based on the current condition of the facility, she does not feel that the facility would last for 5 years, stating it is past its useful life. She commented that putting $800,000 into the building is to abate the mold, not to do major upgrades to the facility.

recess

Mayor Thompson recessed the Regular Meeting, time 4:31 o’clock P.M.

reconvene

Mayor Thompson reconvened the Regular Meeting, time 5:30 o’clock P.M.

INVOCATION

Council Member Abraham delivered the invocation.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Council Member Abraham led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

RECOGNITIONS

2010 u.s. census

Mayor Thompson stated every 10 years, the country takes a census to count every person in the United States and there are very significant reasons. The mantra is 10 minutes, 10 questions for 10 years. In Sugar Land, a complete count committee was appointed with recommendation of Council members.

The Complete Count Committee Members included: Sherrie Knoepfel, Co-Chair, Nancy Porter, Co-Chair, Jeanette Anderson, Leon Anhaiser, Harvinder Arora, John Cantu, George Chang, Tom Gargiulo, K.C. Mehta, D.C. Pickett, Terri Wang, and Shenila Momin. Staff liaisons were Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Lisa Kocich-Meyer, and Pat Pollicoff.

RECOGNITIONS

2010 u.s. census

The proclamation highlights the critical importance and the impact of the 2010 U.S. Census count for the City of Sugar Land, recognizes the efforts of the Mayor’s Complete Count Committee to reach out to the many diverse groups within the community, and proclaims March 2010 U.S. Census -Make Sugar Land Count!

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Thompson introduced Public Comment and entertained registered speakers. There were no public comments.

REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Thompson introduced Review of the Consent Agenda and entertained questions and/or comments.

consent agenda

Mayor Thompson introduced IV.A) CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 10-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE CITY’S COMPENSATION POLICY; IV.B) CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 10-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND INVESTMENT POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT; CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 10-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT; IV.C) Authorizing reimbursement in the amount of $251,285.02 to Newland Communities for upsizing storm sewer drainage facilities on New Territory Boulevard and University Boulevard; IV.D) Authorizing a budget adjustment in the amount of $50,000.00 in revenues and expenditures for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One funding for Town Center Plaza Events; IV.E) Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 16, 2010.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Olson, seconded by Council Member Chaumette, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried unanimously.

grant

Governor’s Advisory Council on physical fitness

Mayor Thompson introduced acceptance of Governor’s Advisory Council on Physical Fitness Grant in the amount of $12,000.00; and authorizing budget amendment in the amount of $12,000.00 to revenues and expenditures.

Mr. Jeff Trinker, Management Assistant I, stated the Grant is for the creation of a Mayor’s Fitness Council (MFC) in Sugar Land. The goal of a Fitness Council in the city is to encourage physical activity and wellness on a community-wide level. The city was awarded $12,000 for use in Phase I of the creation of the MFC.

The grant includes two phases; Phase I of the MFC is a planning and development phase which includes the appointment of the members, holding of focus groups for community assessment, and submission of a Phase II work plan. Phase II is implementation of the health and fitness initiatives identified in the work plan and will include the allocation of an additional $68,000 in funds which brings the total grant funding to $80,000.

Staff liaison for the program will be Assistant City Manager Karen Daly, but contracting with an existing 501(c)(3) organization to provide the bulk of the administrative support is anticipated. The city is looking for an organization that is already established and might consider shifting its priorities to focus on the Mayor’s Fitness Council; a possibility might be Shape Up Sugar Land.

Goals for the MFC are to establish campaigns to promote physical activity, ongoing wellness and physical fitness programs; increase local participation in statewide campaigns and provide opportunities for collaboration on physical and mental health issues. The collaboration could occur with businesses, schools, hospitals, or other government entities.

Acceptable uses of funds for the grant are standard; personnel costs, office supplies, travel related to grant projects, training and education, community assessment, educational materials and implementation of fitness programs developed by MFC.

Budget for Phase I includes two focus groups for a community assessment. Each of the group sessions will cost $4,000; $3,000 is allocated for staff time reimbursement and $1,000 for supplies. Phase I budget is $12,000.

Phase I grant requirements include development of a work plan that must identify names and duties of staff members associated with the grant program, date that the MFC members are appointed, and plans for a community assessment. Phase I requires submission of status reports to Department of State Health Services. The community assessment includes two components: City will plan to utilize the Fort Bend County community assessment completed in 2007 that was conducted for the county as a whole; there will be differences and needs between the County and the City. The focus groups will utilize Sugar Land citizens to target particular health-related areas of concern.

Grant Schedule: Starts on March 15, 2010 with anticipated Phase I contract; Phase II scheduled to start on September 1, 2010, and a 6-month evaluation of Phase II is anticipated for March 1, 2011, a 6-month evaluation of progress already made in the MFC.

Mayor Thompson stated the idea was brought to him by a group of citizens that is active in physical fitness organizations in the community. Through the Department of Health Services, the grant must be submitted under the Mayor’s Office of respective cities. The 501(c)(3) entity may direct some of the efforts. Since starting the project, the Mayor has been contacted by hospital systems, University of Houston, and mental health areas in the community that wish to participate. The Mayor stated a staff position would not be created; the program would be contracted outside similar to Keep Sugar Land Beautiful and the organization would be supported through grant funding. The city will not contribute through the General Fund.

Council Member Jones inquired if Keep Sugar Land Beautiful (KSLB) is aware of the consideration; the Mayor stated the idea has not been taken to the Board, but KSLB is the organization that brought the concept to him initially.

Karen Daly, Assistant City Manager, stated KSLB has expressed interest in participation in the program and will schedule a special board meeting to consider the program within the next 30 days.

Mayor Thompson asked City Council for recommendations on interested individuals to be appointed as Mayor’s Fitness Council Members, as the Council will be constituted within the next 30-45 days.

Following a full and complete discussion, Mayor Thompson, seconded by Council Member Chaumette, made a motion to approve acceptance of Governor’s Advisory Council on Physical Fitness Grant in the amount of $12,000.00; and authorizing budget amendment in the amount of $12,000.00 to revenues and expenditures. The motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Thompson announced that Jeff Trinker will be leaving the City of Sugar Land to further his career with the City of Rosenberg as Assistant Director of Economic Development. The Mayor, City Council, and City Manager voiced their congratulations to Jeff and best wishes on this new opportunity and conveyed their thanks for all his hard work and contributions to the City.

variance

city of sugar land fire station no. 7

Mayor Thompson introduced consideration on a Variance to Sugar Land Development Code Chapter 5, Article VIII, Section 5.51 for driveway separation requirements for City of Sugar Land Fire Station No. 7.

Mr. Chris Steubing, City Engineer, stated the variance is needed for a proposed driveway that will serve as public access to Fire Station #7 located at the corner of New Territory Boulevard and Chatham Avenue in the Telfair Development adjacent to Telfair Section 10 which is currently under construction.

City Development Code Article VIII. Driveways, Section 5-51, states that driveways may be placed no closer than 165 feet on collector roadways in order to reduce conflict points and to facilitate traffic flows. The request for variance is for a driveway separation that will permit construction of an adjoining driveway 90 feet from the main fire apparatus access driveway on Chatham Avenue. Purpose of the secondary driveway is to provide access to a parking lot that is designated for public parking.

The proposed secondary driveway will provide separate points of access for visitors and designated fire equipment to the fire station. The separate access points will eliminate potential conflict between visitor vehicles and fire equipment.

The Engineering Department recommends that City Council approve the variance request for driveway separation at Fire Station No. 7.

Council Member Jones inquired about the esplanade in the middle of the driveway. Staff stated that it is being modified and pulled back in as far as the concrete pavement and that other options were considered on the site layout. Staff considered the heavy movement at New Territory Boulevard and Chatham Avenue intersection and looked into the different orientations on site, wanted to promote the egress movement onto Chatham, lower volume roadway, utilizing the signal, but for the public ingress/egress, this was the safest point at the lower volume road. Discussions were held with the architect and Fire Department.

Council Member Jones stated the city needs to be in compliance with their City ordinances.

Council Member Olson stated this is a unique design that has worked well and supports issuing the variance for the request.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Olson, seconded by Council Member Abraham, made a motion to approve a Variance to Sugar Land Development Code Chapter 5, Article VIII, Section 5.51 for driveway separation requirements for City of Sugar Land Fire Station No. 7. The motion carried unanimously.

contracts and agreements

fort bend convention and visitors bureau

2010 program budget – tourism activities

Mayor Thompson introduced approval of Fort Bend Convention and Visitors Bureau 2010 Program Budget in the amount of $110,000.00 for tourism activities on behalf of the City.

Ms. Regina Morales, Director of Economic Development, stated the City contracts with the Fort Bend Convention and Visitors Services to provide tourism activities on behalf of the City. The source of revenues for the contract is hotel occupancy tax which has restricted uses, one of which is tourism activities.

The $110,000 provides program support funding for the Grand Wine and Food Affair, and the contract requires that one of the obligations is that City Council have the opportunity to review and approve the annual program budget for tourism activities.

Ms. Keri Schmidt, Director of Special Events, Fort Bend Chamber of Commerce, presented a summary of the 2009 Grand Wine & Food Affair event held in the City. There was a record 6,800 attendees from all over the world; approximately 52 percent was female and 48 percent male. The average age of the guests was 42 years with household incomes greater than $150,000. The audience dines out more than seven times a month, enjoys wine with almost every meal, and travels for pleasure over four times a year. Over 70 percent of the ticket buyers were from outside of Fort Bend County, and 95 percent of the participants including the winery representatives, restaurants, chefs, and other vendors traveled from outside the County.

The direct economic impact includes $1.4 million of direct contributions to the area economy: over $450,000 spent in hotels, over $112,000 on dining, $300,000 in ticket sales, over $350,000 invested in event preparations, businesses invested over $200,000 in the festival, and artists and gourmet food vendors received over $17,500.

Other 2009 events included the One Enchanted Evening event, Grand Tasting at the Sugar Land Marriott, Sugar Land Post Oak Grill, the Grand Auction, Friends from Central Market and Houstonian, Hotel Intercontinental event, Sienna Sip ‘N Stroll, Polly’s Cookies, HEB Cheeses, Perry’s Steakhouse, and the Bistro Brunch.

The 2010 proposed program budget for Sugar Land includes primary components, promotional media including advertising and printing. Total expenses $110,000; revenues $110,000.

Council Member Jones asked what the City’s HOT tax is and what the percentage is for this item. Staff stated the HOT tax is running about $1.5 million to $1.8 million a year but may not be on track this year with a downturn in hotel occupancy, and the percentage is about 6.7 percent.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Chaumette, seconded by Council Member Abraham, made a motion to approve Fort Bend Convention and Visitors Bureau 2010 Program Budget in the amount of $110,000.00 for tourism activities on behalf of the City. The motion carried unanimously.

public hearing

zoning of 8.018 acres – telfair section 32

Mayor Thompson convened the Public Hearing to receive and hear all persons desiring to be heard on zoning of 8.018 acres Telfair Section 32 from Interim Standard Single Family Residential (R-1) to Permanent Standard Single Family Residential (R-1).

Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner, stated the request is for permanent zoning of approximately (8) acres located in Section 32 of the Telfair Development, south of Telfair Avenue and west of Kempton Avenue. The property is currently zoned Interim R-1, and the request does comply with the approved Telfair General Plan. Preliminary platting has started for the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the preliminary plat for 25 lots in this section.

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing at the January 12, 2010 meeting and forwarded a recommendation of approval to City Council at the January 28 meeting.

Mayor Thompson entertained comments from the public; hearing none the Public Hearing was closed.

ordinance no. 1774 – permanently zoning 8.018 acres in telfair

Mayor Thompson introduced FIRST CONSIDERATION: CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1774 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, PERMANENTLY ZONING 8.018 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF TELFAIR AVENUE AND WEST OF KEMPTON AVENUE IN THE TELFAIR DEVELOPMENT AS STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT.

Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner, stated there were no further comments.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Olson, seconded by Council Member Chaumette, made a motion to pass to second reading CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1774 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, PERMANENTLY ZONING 8.018 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF TELFAIR AVENUE AND WEST OF KEMPTON AVENUE IN THE TELFAIR DEVELOPMENT AS STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT. The motion carried unanimously.

ordinances and resolutions

ordinance no. 1776 – amending code of ordinances

building contractors to register with the city

Mayor Thompson introduced FIRST CONSIDERATION: CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1776 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE II REQUIRING BUILDING CONTRACTORS TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY.

Mr. Clark Peschel, Building Official, stated at the January 19, 2010 City Council meeting, a workshop item adding registration of building contractors was presented and discussed. The purpose of registering contractors is to verify provisions of the State and local requirements, and collect additional contact information that is currently not received from contractors. Staff has incorporated contractor registration suspension provisions in the event the contractor does not follow through with permit responsibilities.

Criteria have been established within the ordinance to repeal electrical licensing requirements in favor of State licensing laws. The requirements currently in place are very similar.

Staff proposes to implement this as a fee neutral program with use of technology and existing staff, but will need to offset loss of revenue from the repeal of electrical licensing and associated fees that are currently collected. Staff proposes to add base permit fees to plumbing and fire permits, as plumbing and fire protection permits currently do not have a base fee.

Council Member Abraham inquired as to the process for contractor registration. Staff stated contractors can register and information will be collected at the permit counter; the information will be reviewed and entered in the City data base. If information is current, registration can be done immediately. If contractor information is not current, it must be updated prior to registration. The registration will be annual renewal which can occur automatically if the contractor has his credentials current with the City.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Smithers, seconded by Council Member Chaumette, made a motion to pass to second reading CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1776 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE II REQUIRING BUILDING CONTRACTORS TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY. The motion carried unanimously.

ordinance no. 1772 – amending code of ordinances

amending fees for various city services

Mayor Thompson introduced FIRST CONSIDERATION: CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1772 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION TWO OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY SERVICES.

Mr. Bryan Guinn, Budget Manager, stated Ordinance No. 1772 incorporates the changes that were presented in Ordinance No. 1776 regarding building contractor registration and various building fees that are currently collected in the current fee of ordinances.

ordinance no. 1772 – amending code of ordinances

amending fees for various city services

Staff proposes to eliminate the electrical licensing fee; replacing with a base fee for plumbing, fire alarms, and fire extinguishing systems will be added which will be $16.75, the current fee for building permits. The addition of the base fee offsets the loss of revenue from eliminating the electrical licensing, the additional fees for fire alarms, fire extinguishing systems, and plumbing, will bring in approximately $28,000, being revenue neutral. Comparing base fees to other cities in the area, the average fee is about $22.50.

Staff recommends incorporating various building fees into the current ordinance. There are a number of fees that the city currently charges that were previously adopted but are not included in the fees for various city services. Staff is proposing that the fees be incorporated into the fee section of the ordinance to facilitate administration of the fees, but no changes are being made to the fees: Wind Device Fee, Sign Fee, Moving License, Demolition License, and Construction Plan Review. For clarification, a wind device fee is basically for a banner sign, a temporary sign typically used by businesses to announce grand openings.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Olson, seconded by Council Member Smithers, made a motion to pass to second reading CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1772 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION TWO OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY SERVICES. The motion carried unanimously.

workshop

facilities master plan

Mayor Thompson introduced discussion on current Facilities Master Plan and future facilities needs.

Ms. Sereniah Breland, Support Services Director, stated the Facilities Master Plan serves as a tool in planning for future City-owned facilities and is an effort on behalf of the city to identify Capital Improvement Projects in a timely fashion. The current Facilities Master Plan was adopted and reviewed in 2005 and identified potential space requirements in City-owned facilities based upon population projection, identified future Capital Improvement Project needs, provided recommendation for out-year projects, and assessed the condition of some City facilities.

Assumptions in the 2005 Master Plan included: City Hall Annex (Senior Center/PARD) will be demolished and replaced with Fire Station 1 and Fire Administration, displacing the Senior Center/PARD/Fire Administration; Seniors program will be accommodated at a City-owned facility or private sector; New Municipal Courts building will be built next to the Police Department; Public Works facility will expand on site; Police Department will build a satellite site west of the Brazos River; Public Safety will pursue co-operative training opportunities with area agencies; City will retain 123 Brooks until new Archive Storage is built; all projects planned at a population of 100,000 are candidates for a future GO Bond issuance; and population maximum of 200,000.

Facilities Condition Assessment mild mechanical, electrical, and plumbing addressing the structure of the facility, roofing type, and exterior included: Fire Administration, Annex facility, Senior Center, Public Works Complex, Police/Courts, Fire Station 2-6, Eldridge, City Park, Lost Creek, Duhacsek Park, 123 Brooks, First Colony Conference, and Sugar Land Community Center.

New facilities identified and implemented: City Hall, complete; Airport, complete; Animal Shelter, complete; THangars Phase 1, complete; Archive Storage, complete, pending move; Recreation Center, under construction; and Fire Station 7, in design. The archive storage was not a new facility but a build-out within Fire Administration or Old City Hall at 105 Corporate Drive on the south wing, first floor of the facility, and will provide archive space in the near future.

Future Facilities identified in Master Plan in addition to projects already completed or in-design or under-construction: Public Works Office Building; Vehicle Storage facility; Parks Maintenance; new Senior Center; Police Substation; Fire Stations 8-10; Municipal Court and Vehicle Inspections; Recreation Centers 2,3; new Sugar Land Community Center, and Public Safety Training Facility. Discussions have been underway on several of these sites as the city works through current and future needs.

Potential Needs not identified in Master Plan: Recycling centers, EOC (Emergency Operations Center), future use of 123 Brooks Street, utility site buildings, parks, City Hall build-out, and space standard for population estimates. It is no longer a 200,000 population estimate for the city, but approximately 150,000. The Master Plan update in 2005 used the assumption of a population of 200,000.

Population Growth: Prior to 1980, there was a total of 14,000 square feet in the city. From 1980-1989, the Public Works Administration Building #1, a fleet shop, a sign shop, Fire Station 2, and Sugar Land Community Center were added for a total of 31,000 square feet in the 10 years. The population increased from 1990-2000 and City added a car wash, storage building, Public Works Administration facility #2, an expansion to the Fleet shop, Fire Stations # 3 and #4, Fire Administration and Annex building (old City Hall), Austin Parkway maintenance shop, Police and Municipal Court facility, all totaling 100,000 square feet. From 2000 to 2010, the City built Fire Stations #5, #6, and #1, City Hall, Airport terminal, Animal Shelter, and T-Hangars for a total of 268,000 square feet.

Fiscal Year 2010 Municipal CIP: Fire Station #7 is in design; Emergency generators in construction; Fire Administration parking repairs that will finish this year; Energy Efficiency improvements will finish this year; Facility renovations is an ongoing CIP project that rehabs the City facilities; Utility Plants building rehabilitation, and Facility Security items on contract will finish this year. These two projects are identified in the CIP but do not have a current funding source for construction: EOC PD/MC Facility and Public Works Facility Expansion.

In an effort to prepare for the future and capture the work that has been done on several items, staff recommends to pursue an update to the Facilities Master Plan. City Council will have the opportunity to provide direction on proceeding with an update to the Facilities Master Plan and our efforts to align the Master Plan to current and future funding needs.

Staff recommends funding the updated Facilities Master Plan by using design dollars that are on hold in the 2010 CIP and at the end of the month there will be an opportunity to see the budget adjustment and the workshop on CIP.

Council Member Chaumette inquired as to the approximate dollar amount to fund the updated Master Plan and if there is design funding to cover the update cost.

Staff stated in the current CIP, design dollars are allocated to the Emergency Operations Center, Courts and Police Expansion, at $100,000 for design, Staff does not currently anticipate performing the design of those facilities, which would free up the $100,000 that is allocated. Staff predicts $100,000 or less to do an update to the Master Plan. There are other design dollars such as the Public Works facility expansion at $150,000 that has been a place-hold in the 2010 Facilities CIP.

Council Member Schiff asked if this item will be discussed in a workshop or if it is in the strategic planning.

City Manager Bogard stated this will be part of the discussion at the workshop on March 23, as staff is considering reallocation of CIP dollars.

Council Member Olson stated Council has had discussions on recreation centers and future fire stations, and there are some policy issues that Council needs to discuss before moving forward with the next plan.

City Manager Bogard stated the Municipal Facilities Master Plan should be a policy process and policy document, and policy questions should be identified through the planning efforts that City Council will provide direction on as we move forward. The Master Plan pulls together discussions and decisions by the City Council and creates the document that sets the policy direction from all the issues related to Facilities into the document. Mr. Bogard stated Council should begin evaluating the needs on public safety training, needs that are created by growth in the courts, evaluate how to utilize various pieces of property, and let the Municipal Facilities planning process identify the policy questions for the City Council.

Council Member Chaumette and Council Member Olson stated they would like to have discussions on policy issues during the upcoming Council Planning Session.

Council Member Olson stated if Council will be asked for funds to update the Facilities Master Plan, he would like City Council to hold a workshop on what the 2005 Master Plan covers.

high speed internet to communities

Mayor Thompson introduced discussion on Google’s efforts to bring high-speed internet to communities.

Ms. Sharlett Chowning, Director of Information Technology, stated in February 2010, Google announced plans to build and test an ultra high-speed broadband network which provides speeds up to 1 GB per second, 100 times faster than typical broadband in the home. Google will select one or more communities to pilot the ultra-high speed network. The community that is chosen as the Google partner must demonstrate their support and enthusiasm for the pilot. The first step is to submit a response for Google’s Request for Information, which is due to Google by March 26, 2010.

Goals of the project include providing the next generation of applications; new deployment techniques as the pilot project will test new ways to build fiber networks and help inform and support deployments elsewhere. Sugar Land will be shared with the rest of the world in providing real time remote classroom instruction, medical consultations without going from doctor to doctor, and business to business opportunities. Another goal is openness and choice. The fiber optic pipeline will be an open access network as the project provides only the transport to the internet and the choice of the internet service provider will remain with the consumer.

Google is interested in providing the fiber network efficiently and quickly. With the Request for Information, Google is hoping to identify interested communities that will work with them to achieve the goal. Sugar Land is uniquely qualified for state-of-the-art technology as the City is an interested and engaged diverse community, has strong public and private schools/University of Houston and a collaborative local government, plus strong business and economic development, regional medical hub, high tech companies, favorable local regulatory environment, and moderate weather conditions with no snow.

Sugar Land would want to participate in the project as it is known throughout the state as an innovative and forward-moving community. The Google project has received a large amount of press on a national level and would bring the city further notoriety as a forward, progressive city. There is no cost to the city to participate in the project and Google intends to pay the usual right-of-way fees and other local regulatory fees.

If approval is given to move forward with the project, Google is interested in seeing a high level of support from the community, which means garnering the enthusiasm for the project among its citizens. City Council can assist by explaining the project and its benefits throughout the community, at various meetings where Council members participate, to the constituents, and through various media opportunities.

Staff stated that committees have been formed to help prepare the response, as the application form is very intensive. Google is expected to choose a community by the end of 2010, but there will be several stages. The first stage is the Request for Information, and Google will visit the communities, look at the sites, and narrow down the selections.

Mayor Thompson asked when the community that is selected would start seeing the benefits of the technology, and Staff stated Google hopes to deploy quickly and a 2-year timeframe is possibly expected.

Council Member Chaumette inquired as to how much staff time would be committed to the project after the grant is completed, and could the city meet the demands of the project.

Staff stated there are many steps before anything is finalized, and there will be opportunity for Sugar Land to back out if the city chooses once the steps are identified. There is not a large amount of information available at this time, and this is not a commitment in any way. Staff was requested to provide a City contact to work through the process.

Council consensus was to move forward with the application process and commented that the program would be a great economic development opportunity for the city.

city of sugar land legacy foundation

Mayor Thompson introduced discussion on City of Sugar Land Legacy Foundation.

Mr. Jim Browne, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented a brief overview stating the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) Master Plan includes a recommendation to establish a tax-exempt, non-profit organization to fund capital projects through fundraising, endowments, and other mechanisms, and to establish Friends associations to raise money for a single focus purpose such as memorials, specific parks, and public art. The Memorializing Task Force made a recommendation to initiate a private 501c3 non-profit foundation for the purpose of raising funds, improving and protecting parkland for the City of Sugar Land.

The scope of the Strategic Project was “to evaluate establishment of a non-profit organization, foundation or friends group with fundraising and advocacy roles for parks and recreation”. The objectives were to research preferred structure, scope, and purpose; grow civic pride, build community; retain untapped wealth of Sugar Land; create a significant funding resource; provide “planned giving” opportunities; solicitation of significant funds versus “retail fundraising”; be a repository for bequeathals, trusts, corporate giving, non-profit grants; and foundation to foundation giving.

Staff received direction from Council to work with the Finance/Audit Committee in fine-tuning the scope and moving forward with recommendations: evaluate community foundations and the Parks Foundation concept through which the hybrid foundation concept was developed.

Staff received a recommendation to name the foundation, “Sugar Land Legacy Foundation”, to support the hybrid concept. The purpose of the Foundation is “supporting the City of Sugar Land in the acquisition, ownership, construction, development, improvement, operation, and maintenance of land and facilities owned or controlled by the City of Sugar Land”. Sugar Land Legacy Foundation was formed for charitable purposes that will benefit its citizens, including land and facilities for recreation, entertainment, athletics, the arts, cultural and similar activities.

The “Certificate of Formation” has been drafted with the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney as the initial incorporators of the Foundation…to be replaced by City Council appointments upon formation. The Foundation will function as a component unit of the City.

The primary focus of the Foundation is major municipal capital projects with an emphasis on philanthropy and fund development versus retail fundraising type activities.

Next steps will include finalizing the draft By-Laws, currently under Legal review, for consideration by the Finance/Audit Committee before being brought forward to City Council for consideration.

Council Member Jones stated the purpose of the Foundation is to accept contributions for capital improvements that would be primarily owned by the City of Sugar Land. The Foundation Board will be composed of leading citizens who have the opportunity to contribute to the City not only by their presence at meetings, but their talents and contacts throughout the region and to help facilitate contributions to the organization; and he added that this is definitely not in competition with a cultural arts program.

Council Member Olson stated the Foundation will accomplish what Council had intended, and ties the potential of citizens giving to City-owned facilities, structures; the Foundation will support the needs of the City facilities to care for the citizens.

Council Member Schiff stated he is unsure of the word “fundraising” and if it should be in the Charter, and commented that receiving funds from those who choose to give is different than active solicitation of funds. There are 1700 non-profits in Fort Bend County with a shortage of volunteers and dollars, and stated he would not like to see another fundraising activity, but there needs to be an entity to receive funds for capital projects to enhance the city. The citizens want to provide art work in the parks and various kinds of public art.

City Manager Bogard stated staff would like to obtain City Council consensus to file the Charter language which does not include the word “fundraising”; Mr. Bogard stated the word is only used in the Executive Summary.

Council Member Schiff stated the word “fundraising” should perhaps be removed from the Executive Summary or defined more clearly so that the Foundation Board understands their purpose and role.

Mayor Thompson stated the City Manager has requested to file the Charter, and there will be opportunity to come back as the 501c3 component of the city is a long process.

Council Member Jones departed the Chamber at 7:15 o’clock P.M.

proposed cultural arts program

Mayor Thompson introduced discussion on proposed cultural arts program and related options.

Ms. Regina Morales, Director of Economic Development, stated the goal that the City set forth for Cultural Arts is to provide and/or support activities and facilities that enrich the artistic, cultural, educational, and historical character of Sugar Land. The intent in developing a Cultural Arts program is to create an umbrella program providing the overall vision and plan for all related cultural arts activities, programs, facilities, and funding allocations as directed by the City. Purpose of the program: to act as the catalyst for cultural and performing arts in Sugar Land by providing leadership and oversight for a citywide arts program, coordinate activities between existing arts related nonprofit groups, provide oversight to the funding of each based on established objectives achieved toward the overall vision and goals for the Cultural Arts program set by City Council.

The source of funds for the Cultural Arts is the city Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) revenues based on the statute which allows a city to spend up to 15 percent of the total revenues; currently the estimated annual amount that City can dedicate to Cultural Arts is approximately $250,000.

Staff researched other cities’ cultural arts programs, including the structure, performance, and funding. Some of the cities have a combination of non-profit community arts programs and City appointed boards, but most had Council advisory boards.

The cities chosen were Frisco, Richardson, Round Rock, and Plano which are similar in development and size to Sugar Land.

Frisco: The Frisco Public Art Board, a city appointed board, handles the art component for the Cultural Arts program. The board has five members who act as the advisory board for recommending how the funds are spent to the City Council. One full-time staff member is dedicated to overseeing the program. The Frisco Association for the Arts is a non-profit that was set up ten years ago, but two years ago the city designated the organization as the grant provider for the numerous non-profit cultural arts programs. The board of directors has 14 members with two part-time employees. Budget is $150,000, of which $75,000 comes from the city HOT funds; the other $75,000 is from fundraising activities.

Richardson: The Richardson Arts (Eisemann Center) uses a City department with a staff of 21 full-time employees who run the Eisemann Center. The Arts Commission is a Council-appointed board that acts as the Advisory Board for recommendations on facilities and re-granting of HOT funds for non-profits to the Council.

Round Rock: Round Rock Cultural Arts is in the same stage of development as the City of Sugar Land. The city has HOT funds that are used to determine grants as needed or “as requested” basis. Recently, a Cultural Arts committee was appointed with 5 members; 2 City Council and 3 staff members that will act as an advisory board to the City Council.

Plano: The Cultural Affairs Commission is an advisory board appointed by City Council, and a Public Art Committee handles that portion.

Funding Source: HOT funds for Frisco Association for the Arts nonprofit; for Frisco Public Art, use the General Fund and CIP. Richardson Arts use HOT funds. Round Rock Cultural Arts use HOT funds. Plano uses a combination of HOT funds and General Funds due to numerous city cultural arts facilities.

Purpose: Frisco Association of the Arts: re-granting of the HOT funds; Frisco Public Art oversees public art selections and decisions within the city. Richardson Arts: oversees distribution of HOT funds and facilities; $3.9 million is total budget, $300,000 is dedicated to arts organizations, and $3.6 million to operations and maintenance of Eisemann Center. Round Rock Cultural Arts: With a smaller budget of $25,000, oversees distribution of HOT funds to the non-profits. Plano Creative Arts: Budget is $1.7 million, $660,000 from grants, $25,000 dedicated to public art and divided up into County Arts Program, Summer Arts Program, and operations, maintenance, and salaries in $681,000.

Each of the communities has established their own Convention and Visitors Bureau that is funded; a portion is funded by the HOT activities. As more venues were added to the communities, they felt a promotion outlet should be provided for the tourism activities.

Staff requested City Council direction on a preferred structure: Advisory Council or Commission appointed by Council; separate non-profit organization wherein the city provides support funding; program to include cultural art and public art; research other cities; or utilize consultants.

Regarding the roles, City Council will determine the option of how to structure the arts board and the city funding commitment. A cultural arts board would implement the program, oversee the application process for grants funds or re-granting, provide coordination between cultural arts non-profit organizations, and oversee use of future cultural arts facilities. Additional direction is needed on who would take the role of vision and goals for the program and public facility process for recommendations.

Based on City Council’s preferred structure and specified roles, Staff will determine criteria for appointments; dependent on structure, appoint to City committee or establish 501c3 non-profit; begin strategic planning process with consultant; develop the business plan and bring back to Council for adoption.

CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER REPORTS

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

Mayor Thompson introduced Community Events Attended or Scheduled.

Council Member Smithers attended the Arcola City Council meeting with Council Member Abraham, and attended Pete and Shorty’s restaurant opening.

Council Member Chaumette reported attending the Mantra restaurant opening, TPC Houston-Galveston Area Council meeting, and the Fort Bend Education Foundation Gala.

Council Member Abraham reported attending the Little League season opening and the Arcola City Council meeting.

Council Member Olson attended Economic Development Committee meeting, East Fort Bend Human Needs building dedication in Stafford

CITY MANAGER REPORT

City Manager Allen Bogard recognized TRAPS, the Texas Recreation and Parks Society, which has awarded the City of Sugar Land Parks and Recreation Department the “Excellence in Planning” award for the Hike and Bike Trail Master Plan, another accolade for the master plan.

ADJOURN

There, being no further business to come before Council, Council Member Smithers, seconded by Council Member Olson, moved that the meeting adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned, time at 7:32 o'clock P.M.

_____________________________________

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

(SEAL)