Item # 1b - August 12, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes

CITY OF ALAMO HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL
August 12, 2025
A Special City Council Meeting and Work Session of the City Council of the City of
Alamo Heights, Texas was held at the Council Chambers, located at 6116 Broadway, San
Antonio, Texas, at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, 2025. A teleconference was held via Zoom.
Present and composing a quorum were:
Mayor Albert Honigblum
Mayor Pro Tem Trey Jacobson
Councilmember Lawson Jessee
Councilmember Karl P. Baker
Councilmember Blake M. Bonner
Councilmember Lynda Billa Burke
Also attending were:
City Manager Buddy Kuhn
City Attorney Jessie Lopez
Assistant City Manager Phillip Laney
Assistant to City Manager Jennifer Reyna
City Secretary Elsa T. Robles
Director of Finance Kristine Horton
Community Development Services Director Lety Hernandez
Police Chief Rick Pruitt
Fire Chief Allen Ottmers
Public Works Director Frank Orta
Deputy Police Chief Cindy Pruitt
Community Development Services Planner Tyler Brewer
* * *
Item # 1 Approval of Minutes
Mayor Honigblum asked the City Council for a motion on the July 24, 2025 Special
Meeting & Budget Work Session meeting minutes. Councilmember Lynda Billa Burke moved to
approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lawson Jessee
and passed by a 5-0 vote.
* * *
Item # 2 Announcements
Mayor Rosenthal read the following caption.
a. 25th Annual Soler Sports 5K, August 16, 2025
Community Development Services Director Lety Hernandez stated she was announcing
the 25th
Annual Soler Sports event scheduled for Saturday, August 16th
at 8:30 a.m. Set-up will
begin at 10:00 a.m. the day before, August 15th
. The event will take place at the Alamo Heights
Pool – 250 Viesca Ave and will follow the same route as in previous years.
* * *

August 12, 2025 Special Council Meeting
2
Item # 3 Citizens to be Heard
No comments made.
* * *
Consent Agenda
Item # 4 Mayor Honigblum read the following caption.
Architectural Review Board Case No. 986F, a request of Jahan
Ahmadi of BB Puerto LLC, applicant, representing Daryl Lange,
owner, for the significance review of the existing main structure and
compatibility review of the proposed design located at 328 Albany St
in order to demolish 100% of the existing structure and construct a
new single-family residence with detached garage.
Councilmember Billa Burke moved to approve ARB Case No. 986F as presented. The
motion was seconded by Councilmember Blake M. Bonner and passed by a 5-0 vote.
* * *
Items for Individual Consideration
Architectural Review Board Case No. 993F, a request of Richard
Garrod of Studios8 Architects, applicant, representing 5307
Broadway, Ltd., owner, for the final review of the proposed redesign
to the existing commercial use structure located at 5307 Broadway
St.
Community Development Services Department Director Lety Hernandez stated part of the
property in this case is located in the floodway. The property is divided into three different
zoning districts, Business/Parking/Multi-Family (B-1 / P / MF-D) and is located at 5307
Broadway St. on the west side of Broadway between Joliet Ave and Kennedy Ave. The applicant
requests approval for the final review of the proposed redesign to the existing commercial use
structure.
Ms. Hernandez reviewed the existing conditions, site plans, survey, and elevations. She
presented proposed site plans, elevations, renderings, and examples of proposed exterior
materials. She stated proposed signage would require ARB review and is not being considered at
this time. The project will be required to complete the plan review process to ensure compliance
with current building and zoning regulations. She reiterated the property is located in the
floodway and is subject to review and approval of a floodplain development permit.
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) reviewed and approved a variance request for parking
ratio on July 2, 2025.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) considered the request at their July 22, 2025
special meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed design.

3
Ms. Hernandez stated public notifications were mailed to property owners within a 200-
foot radius. Notices were posted on the City’s website and on the property. Staff received five
responses in support, two in opposition and one neutral response. She clarified the opposition
was regarding increased traffic.
Councilmember Billa Burke moved to approve the request as presented. The motion was
seconded by Councilmember Jessee and passed by 5-0 vote.
Public Hearing – Planning and Zoning Case No. 448. A request of
Omar Rodriguez, applicant, as authorized by Section 16-105 of the
Code of Ordinances to close, vacate, abandon, and sell a portion of
public right-of-way, approximately 7sq ft (0.0002-acre tract) that
adjoins the southeastern side of the property identified as CB 4024,
BLK 10, LOT 62, EXC W IRR 2.73FT ALAMO HEIGHTS
ADDITION, also known as 900 Cambridge Oval.
Ms. Hernandez stated the Single Family - A (SF-A) property is located at 900 Cambridge
Oval on the western side between Estes Ave. and Morton St. The applicant requests approval to
purchase approximately 7 square feet of the city’s right-of-way (ROW).
Ms. Hernandez reviewed the existing and proposed conditions of the requested ROW
noting the triangular shape. She stated city code allows for the City Council to consider selling
city ROW at a fair market value. The P&Z Commission did recommend the sale for approval.
The owner has agreed to the average price per square foot per the Bexar County Appraisal
District (BCAD) market values of $53.78 per square feet = $376.46 total for the 7 square feet.
The Planning & Zoning Commission considered the request at the July 14, 2025 special
meeting and voted to recommend approval of the request with the condition that the owner not
construct any non-softscape improvements in the triangular area. She noted the applicant would
like to install a fence to square off the triangular section.
foot radius. Notices were posted on the City’s website and on the property. A legal notice was
published in official newspaper of the City, the San Antonio Express-News. Staff received three
responses in support and one in opposition within the 200-foot radius. No responses were
received outside the 200-foot radius; however, the owner provided an additional eight responses
in support within the 200-foot radius and seven responses in support outside the 200-foot radius.
Mayor Honigblum opened the public hearing at 5:42 p.m.
- Mr. Omar Rodriguez, applicant, stated the reason for the request to purchase the 7
square feet was to straighten out their property line and landscape with the
condition not build anything in that triangle that will obstruct the view and not to
impact their neighbor negatively.
- Mr. Joseph Merkord, resident, stated he and his mother live next door to the
property in question and are in favor of the proposed purchase if approved with
the condition that the Planning and Zoning Commission set forth. He noted on the

4
rendering that the property owners are requesting to draw the ROW line 1 or 2
inches short of where it abuts the property and per the ordinance, it means that the
next-door neighbor needs to agree. He stated the applicant proposes to build a
fence across the city’s right-of-way. He did not think selling the public right-of-
way was the right decision for the citizens of Alamo Heights. He noted there have
been zero-foot setbacks approved on the neighboring property, and so by selling
them more land does open up the opportunity for them to come back in the future
and request further zero-foot setbacks that could get approved.
Councilmember Karl P. Baker asked why there was a distinction between this case and
other cases where the city would grant license agreements for public right-of-way.
City Manager Buddy Kuhn stated that was the applicant’s request and commented the
city had sold property in the past and is able to sell provided they do not find any public benefit
or public utilities running through these properties.
Council discussed the proposed sale of the ROW and how it would benefit the applicant
and his neighbor. City Attorney Jessie Lopez stated if City Council made a motion to sell then
the condition set forth by P&Z would be included in the deed as a use restriction.
After some discussion, Mr. Rodriguez confirmed his request was so that he could square
off his property and suggested conveying or swapping the triangular section he owned for the
triangular section owned by the city identified in a rendering.
Mr. Lopez advised City Council could consider “swapping” the properties; however, it
would have to be at a future meeting because the item had not been noticed that manner on the
agenda.
Councilmember Baker commented this trading the properties would be best for all parties
involved. Mayor Honigblum agreed and suggested Council table the item to allow staff/applicant
to work out the proper documentation. Councilmember Baker suggested staff not charge a fee to
the applicant for the ROW.
Mr. Lopez stated it would be at the Council's discretion to receive value in kind if the
property is of equal value. He advised the legal description and actual dimensions of the property
in question were needed in order to be added to the city right-of-way. Mr. Rodriguez agreed to
provide the city with the meets and bounds of both properties.
Ms. Hernandez shared Mr. Rodriguez had suggested swapping the properties at the
Planning & Zoning Commission; however, they had not included that in their motion to
recommend to the City Council.
Mr. Lopez advised the case needed to be reconsidered by the Planning & Zoning
Commission to include the proposed swapping of properties before the City Council could take
action.
With all parties in agreement and no further discussion, Mayor Honigblum closed the
public hearing at 5:56 p.m.

5
Discussion and possible action on Planning and Zoning Case No.
448, a request of Omar Rodriguez, applicant, as authorized by
Section 16-105 of the Code of Ordinances to close, vacate, abandon,
and sell a portion of public right-of-way, approximately 7sq ft
(0.0002-acre tract) that adjoins the southeastern side of the property
identified as CB 4024, BLK 10, LOT 62, EXC W IRR 2.73FT
ALAMO HEIGHTS ADDITION, also known as 900 Cambridge
Oval.
Mayor Pro Tem Jacobson moved to table P&Z Case No. 448 for a future City Council
meeting pending further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was
Architectural Review Board Case No. 995F, a request of Patrick
Flanigan of 218 Primrose Pl, LLC, owner, to request a variance and
appeal staff’s decision regarding Section 5-134(b), Demolition
Review Procedures that prohibits separation of the significance and
compatibility review processes in order to demolish 100% of the
existing main structure located at 218 Primrose Pl.
Ms. Hernandez stated the Single-Family A (SF-A) property is located at 218 Primrose Pl.
on the south side between Wintergreen Dr. and Buttercup Dr. The applicant requests approval of
a variance appealing staff’s decision regarding Section 5-134(b), Demolition Review Procedures
prohibiting separation of the significance and compatibility review in order to demolish 100% of
the existing main structure. She stated this is subject to the demolition review due to the full
demolition request. She explained, in June 2024, City Council approved a revised ordinance
combining the significance and compatibility review processes and prohibiting their separation.
Ms. Hernandez reviewed the existing conditions and surrounding properties. She
reiterated the applicant is requesting to appeal staff’s decision for the denial of the significance
review separation from the compatibility review. She added a replacement structure is not
proposed at this time, and any future consideration of a single-family residence would be subject
to review by the ARB and approval by City Council.
foot radius. Notices were posted on the City’s website and on the property. Staff received one
response in support and one in opposition. She noted two additional responses in support were
provided.
Mayor Honigblum stated this case had been brought before the City Council by the
previous owner earlier this year for 100% demolition but was denied. He opened the floor for
comments from the audience.

6
- Mr. Patrick Flanagan stated he was the new owner of 218 Primrose. The goal is to
demolish the home and start the process to develop plans for their forever home. He
stated he understood the ordinance was established to prevent home flipping and vacant
lots. He commented he respectfully appealed his case and noted a recent demolition that
was granted by City Council which created two vacant lots.
- Mr. Plack Carr, resident and property neighbor, stated he supported the request and didn’t
understand why it would not be approved. He noted abandoned properties are subject to
fire safety issue. He added there should be consistency in approving or denying variance
appeals.
Councilmember Baker stated he agrees with the concept of consistency; however, if the
variance is granted everyone requesting the same in the future would expect the same. He did not
see a hardship or justification to approve. He added the decision to change the ordinance/policy
was because there were many cases where people were strongly opposed to demolitions.
Mayor Honigblum commented the intent of the code modification was not thought
through, regardless of Council’s decision, the 180 days’ time clock for demolition commenced.
He stated he did not want to postpone the inevitable but wanted to be consistent. He shared he
had spoken to the City Manager on this case and suggested modifying the code to make it more
appropriate.
Councilmember Jessee stated the point of the ordinance was to keep neighborhoods
looking better in Alamo Heights, but in this case, the neighbors are in favor of demolition. He
did not think if they voted one way or another, it would be setting a precedent to vote the same
way over and over again in future cases.
Mr. Lopez commented that it would not be legally binding; however, there could be
ramifications among the community about inconsistency. He added City Council has the
discretion to vote either way. He stated he would research to see if the 180 days would restart
with the new applicant.
After further discussion, it was clarified that the applicant had 90 days before demolition
because he was using the same contractor as in the original applicant three months ago. City
Council agreed 90 days have passed and they had done their due diligence to abide by the
ordinance.
Councilmember Jessee moved to approve the request as presented. The motion was
seconded by Councilmember Bonner and passed by 5-0 vote.
* * *
Councilmember Blake M. Bonner left the meeting at 6:53 p.m. and did not vote for the remaining agenda
items.
* * *
Presentation of Proposed FY 2025 - 2026 Operating Budget and
scheduling a public budget hearing

7
Mr. Kuhn stated he was presenting the proposed FY 2025-2026 Budget for the City of
Alamo Heights and would request Council consider scheduling a public hearing at the next
regular Council meeting on August 25, 2025.
Mr. Kuhn stated the City adopts a balanced budget for each fiscal year in accordance with
Texas State law and generally accepted accounting standards. The budget is required to cover
only those expenditures with revenue for which the City has authority to levy, thus creating a
balanced budget. A public hearing is required for the proposed budget to ensure transparency
with Alamo Heights citizens.
The proposed FY 2025-2026 Budget revenues cover operating expenditures and creates a
balanced budget. Mr. Kuhn stated this working capital can be returned to the Fund Balance or
designated to fund capital assets or projects. He advised the proposed budget includes a $5
increase to the residential garbage fee to $25/month and non-residential $35/month. The garbage
fee increase will support increasing costs for garbage and recycling services.
Mr. Kuhn summarized the proposed budget components for FY2025-2026. These include
the Tax Rate, General Fund Budget, Comprehensive Fund, Capital Projects, Street Maintenance
Fund & Capital Replacement Fund, Utility Fund Revenues and Allocations, Capital Projects
Fund and Council’s guidance on the final budget.
Mr. Kuhn reviewed a summary of the proposed General Fund Budget for FY 2025-2026.
The Operating Revenues beginning on October 1, 2025 are $7,795,221 with projected operating
revenues of $14,329,861. Staff is predicting to have $357,404 in savings from FY 2025 budget
which provides a total of $14,787,265 available funds. Department Allocations are -$14,787,265
leaving remaining funds at $0. Staff expects an estimated fund balance of $7,437,817 at the end
of the fiscal year on September 30, 2026.
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends at least a 25% Fund
Balance of the General Fund operating budget. The General Fund had a balance of 56% of the
operating budget at the end of September 30, 2024. The fund balance allows the city to withstand
any unforeseen disasters and emergencies. It also saves thousands in interest costs if the city
issues bonds because the city has an AAA rating from S&P mainly due to the fund balance being
in good standing, the stable economy and strong management.
Mr. Kuhn reviewed the proposed FY 2025-2026 improvements which totaled $1,445,357.

8
Mr. Kuhn reviewed the proposed solid waste fee increase noting a $25 residential and
$35 for non-residential was proposed for FY2026 bringing in approximately $888,000 in
projected revenues. The operating expenses total $1,021,670 for FY 2026, $150,000 of which are
a one-time purchase of garbage bins for residents. He reviewed a chart with optional fees and
their impact to the budget.
Assistant City Manager Phillip Laney continued with the presentation and reviewed the
proposed Utility Fund Revenue and Allocations estimated beginning balance for FY 2025-2026
on October 1, 2025 is $2,147,752. The Fund Revenues are at $4,753,775 and Operating
Expenses of $6,276,535, leaving a balance of $0 in working capital. He noted as in past years
with Council’s direction, reserves will be used to help cover the balance of our expenditures.
Additionally, to help fund various large projects, staff will be looking at debt issuance moving
forward. The projected gross fund balance on September 30, 2026 is $624,992. There is a
projected $544,023 in reserves collected from the Drought Surcharge Fee that are set aside to use
at Council’s discretion.
Mr. Laney summarized other proposed governmental fund balances and noted:
After the presentation, Councilmember Jessee requested clarification on the Capital
Projects projected fund balance and asked staff to report the 2021 taxable bond proceeds
separately in the future. Mayor Honigblum agreed and asked for staff to present a full
reconciliation of this fund balance.

9
Council discussed the utility fund, the need for a rate study and issuing debt. Mr. Kuhn
stated the rate study is necessary and worth it because the data received supports wages/salaries,
and future fee increases. Mr. Kuhn added debt issuance is forthcoming for upcoming utility
project expenditures. He commented it will take approximately 100 to 110 days from the time
staff presents to Council to issue the debt certificates of obligation on the utility system.
Council discussed increasing the solid waste fee to help the operation cover its own
expense. They agreed to increase fees, $29 for residential, and $45 for non-residential.
Additionally, they requested staff to include funding for a Public Relations Consultant for future
city communication initiatives. Mr. Kuhn stated it had not been included in the budget; however,
funding would not be an issue. He suggested going with Janet Holliday.
With no further discussion, Mr. Laney requested Council’s approval to hold a public
hearing for the proposed FY 2025-2026 Budget and set an action item to adopt the proposed
budget at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on August 25, 2025.
Councilmember Jessee moved the City hold a public hearing for the Proposed FY 2025-
2026 Budget on August 25, 2025. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jacobson and
passed by 4-0 vote.
Councilmember Jessee moved the City have an action item to adopt the Proposed FY
2025-2026 Budget on August 25, 2025. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Billa
Burke and passed by 4-0 vote.
Discussion and possible action to set the proposed 2025 tax rate and
scheduling a public hearing
Mr. Kuhn stated the City is required by Ch. 26 of the Texas Property Code to determine
and publish the no new revenue tax rate and the voter approval tax rate. He noted these could all
change next year, depending on what happens in the special legislative session. The City is
required to decide how much revenue is needed and to calculate the rate required to raise that
amount. Public notices must be published and if the proposed tax rate will exceed the no new
revenue tax rate, the City must hold one public hearing and adopt a tax rate. He stated in theory
the property tax rate and property valuation have an inverse relationship. If the valuation goes
up, the tax rate goes down and vice versa. The no new revenue rate would provide the same
amount of revenue received in the prior year on properties taxed in both years, which excludes
new values.
Mr. Kuhn stated the current tax rate is $ 0.370147 per $100 and reviewed the 2025 Tax
Rate calculations per $100 received from Bexar County Tax Assessor.
-No New Revenue Tax Rate - $ 0.367873
provides the same amount of revenue received in prior year on properties taxed in both
years which excludes new values
-Voter Approval Tax Rate - $ 0.475767
maximum rate allowed by law without triggering an automatic election to approve tax
rates exceeding the voter approval tax rate

10
Staff is recommending the proposed tax rate for 2025 to be kept the same at $0.370147
per $100 valuation. Mr. Kuhn broke down the proposed 2025 Tax Levy and proposed fund
balances.
Freeze Adjusted Taxable Value $1,736,965,302
Proposed Tax Rate $0.370147 / $100
Taxable Revenue $6,429,325
Plus Tax Freeze Revenue $2,052,173
Total Property Tax Revenue $8,405,165
FISCAL IMPACT
O&M (General Fund) $7,318,328
I&S (Debt Service Fund) $1,086,837
Total Property Tax Revenue $8,405,165
Mr. Kuhn stated the 2025 proposed tax rate of $0.370147 is anticipated to collect
$7,318,328 to support General Fund operations (O&M). He reviewed alternative 2025 tax levy
options for Council to consider.
Mr. Kuhn noted the 2025 proposed tax rate of $0.370147 is more than the No-New
Revenue Tax Rate of $0.367873. He advised once Council decides and approves a tax rate, the
adopted tax rate cannot be higher. Council is required to hold a public hearing to obtain citizen
input. The City will publish notices in the San Antonio Express-News pursuant to the Texas
Property Tax Code.
Mayor Pro Tem Jacobson stated he was inclined to stay with the current tax rate;
however, considering the Governor may limit the ability of municipalities, other local
governments are deciding to raise their property taxes in anticipation and in an effort to raise
their fund balances before and if these laws are implemented.
Council discussed in depth increasing the tax rate; however, decided to keep the proposed
tax rate of $0.370147.
Mr. Kuhn requested Council’s approval to hold a public hearing for the proposed 2025
Ad Valorem Tax Rate on August 25, 2025 and set an action item to adopt the 2025 Ad Valorem
Tax Rate on August 25, 2025.
Councilmember Jessee moved to set the proposed 2025 Tax Rate at $0.370147 per $100
valuation composed of the M&O Rate of $0.307576 and the I&S Rate of $0.062571. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jacobson and passed by roll call vote as follows: Ayes –
Mayor Pro Tem Jacobson, Councilmember Jessee, Councilmember Baker, and Councilmember
Billa Burke. Nays – None. Present but not voting – Mayor Honigblum.

11
Councilmember Jessee moved the City hold a public hearing for consideration of the
2025 Proposed Tax Rate on August 25, 2025. The motion was seconded by Councilmember
Billa Burke and passed by 4-0 vote.
Councilmember Jessee moved the City set an action item on the August 25, 2025 agenda
to adopt the 2025 Tax Rate. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Billa Burke and
passed by 4-0 vote.
Mr. Kuhn noted due Council’s desire to increase the solid waste fees, there will be
additional funds generated for the next fiscal year and will be reflected in the budget document
on August 25, 2025 for consideration.
Mayor Honigblum thanked staff and Mr. Kuhn for all their work on the budget and tax
presentations.
* * *
Closed Session
Executive Session as authorized by the Texas Government Code Section
551.071 (consultation with attorney) to discuss an economic development
project.
The City Council of the City of Alamo Heights convened into Closed Executive Session
at 7:19 p.m. and reconvened in Open Session at 8:17 p.m. in accordance with the Texas Open
Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Section §551.071 (Consultation with Attorney).
* * *
Open Session
Item # 12 Mayor Rosenthal read the following caption.
Discussion and possible action resulting from Executive Session
No action taken.
* * *
Councilmember Billa Burke moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Motion was

12
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.
__________________________
Albert Honigblum
Mayor
____________________________
Elsa T. Robles, TRMC
City Secretary

Item # 1b - August 12, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes

More Related Content

Similar to Item # 1b - August 12, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes (20)

More from ahcitycouncil (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Item # 1b - August 12, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes