All right, it's 12:30 and I now open the regular city council meeting for the uh city of Leuk for August the 12th, 2025. City council will now recess into executive session in accordance with Texas government code section 551.071 071 to consult with and seek the advice of the city's legal council for those items posted, including items on our agenda 6.11 and 7.14 and uh government codes 551.072 to discuss the purchase, exchange or value of real property and section 551.074 to discuss personnel matters and 551.087 to discuss economic development matters. The city council is now recessing at 12. I don't know what time is correct. 1231, which is not the time on any of our computers up here. >> All right. The city council is now reconvening in open session. will take up a work session for a presentation and discussion of the proposed fiscal year 202526 operating budget and capital program. Uh before I call on the mayor uh to lead this discussion, just let me >> you are the mayor. >> Let before I call on the city manager. Yeah, I'm going to call on myself um uh to lead that discussion. Let people know that we're having some technical difficulties today. So although this meeting will not be broadcast, it will be recorded and available uh later on and some of our presentations may not come up on your computers. Uh we'll just deal with that as we can. And um so city manager, Mr. Atkinson, turn it over to you. >> Thank you, Mayor, City Council. Unfortunately, the budget presentation is one of those that will not come up today. So, in each of your spots, we have just handed out a very short uh slide deck. I'm going to kind of walk through it. Um really, this is just continuing to follow up and try to set the stage for where we stand after the news that we had last week. So, moving over to the first page, um property tax calculations. What we've tried to do is lay out where you are, what that does to M maintenance and operations for the general fund, what the resulting levy will be, and then of course the variance in dollars. So the new no new revenue tax rate is going to produce an M rate of 0.345378, 34 a.5 pennies. The levy from that the amount of dollars are calculated at 8.1 81.1 excuse me million dollars consistent with what you saw last Thursday. Remember that is the number that resulted from the large worksheet that we had and that is where we start today. We told you Thursday you levied 83 and you collected 83. That is true. But to go back to 83 now is technically a tax increase. Okay. The second row also from those worksheets. And remember we have no dispute with the worksheets. They are what they are. You have the fiscal year 2026 current voter approval tax rate. Total 47.1053 pennies. the M and O portion 36.3467 pennies or a levy of 85.4 million. It's a variance of 4.25 25. That is though you're 3 and a half% and remember you still have where we took a reduction in the interest in sinking and moved over into the maintenance and operation. Moving that INS money over does not change the bottom line that a taxpayer pays. It's not an increase to them. It is a tax increase on paper. All right. The budget that we presented last week was based on a proposed tax rate of 47.9365 [Music] pennies with a maintenance and operations component of 37.1779 and a total M levy of 87363 87.3 million for consideration not for action. know though that that proposed tax rate since it's above the voter approval rate and it's by $1.9 million. The those are all consistent that would require if ultimately that is what finally is adopted by this council at the two meetings in September 8/10 of one penny over the voter approval rate or in other words that uses an increment. Remember council, you gain increments when you do not go to your 3 and a.5% tax increase. That was designed to encourage good budgeting. That is something this council has done, prior councils has done, and you have built a bank of when you didn't use that. So based on that proposed tax rate, 8/10 of one penny of the increment would be used. You have 2.6 six pennies sitting there leaving you with 1.8 pennies. And I'm going to stop there. Is that clear on how these lay out? Everybody clear? Any questions on that? Um, so the your projected levy in your third fourth column I guess m that's what's raised off the third column tax rate against the value of the property that we've got existing property right >> correct >> okay that's the same number on the total levy that you saw in the budget presentation the variance is what is now different and it is different because of that $ 1.9 million loss >> okay And um the 4 uh two 4 and a4 million is the 3.5% uh voter approval rate. What requires a voter approval rate without use of the increment? Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. And your your proposed budget would use 8/10 of a penny on the rate of our available unused increment. And 810 of a penny is worth $1.9 million. Everything's going to come back to 1.9 >> and that still would not require the voter approval. Is that right? >> That is that is correct, Mayor. It's a good point. So the 3 and 12% which is supposed to be 3 and 12% new money is always called the voter approval rate. That's statutory. You can go over that by using increment which you have roughly 2.6 pennies worth of increment. If you don't have increment and you wish to go over 3 and a.5% net new money that is when you call an election in November. This does not require that. >> Okay. Nor has it been adopted. I want I want to be clarified by >> we're not adopting anything today other than the maximum, but I'm just raising questions or trying to get answers to questions people will have. Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Collins. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh just to be clear and I think I understand this, but when we see these variance numbers of the two potential rates, those are that variance is actually inflated by 1.9 million from last year's collection. >> That is correct. So, so if we if we look at this at 4.2, uh we're really talking about 3.3 2.3 of additional money um from from last year because of the >> because of the >> configurations of of things that happened. >> Yes. >> With LCAT. Thank you. >> Okay, we go to the next page. These numbers were in your presentation. We talked about them last Monday. Obviously, because of the changes, they're incorrect. So, these are the new correct numbers that will line up with what you saw on the prior page as well as the cumulative um changes. So for 2025, the budget that you passed this time last year on the average single family home, your adopted tax levy resulted in a bill of $1,4522. So that average home generated a tax bill of $1,4522. Okay. the 2026 we're back in to this August that new no new revenue rate the top row on the on the prior page even accounting for the 1% increase in the value of a single family home that new no new revenue rate would produce a tax bill on the on the average single family home of $1,03752 four goes down by $7.70. So in our case, and we went over it Thursday, no new revenue doesn't really mean that. But again, you're working against that 1.9. So if ultimately the new no new revenue rate was adopted, everybody's single family average bill went down by $7.70. Cumulatively, that's a 1.887 887 million reduction in money available to the general fund for operations. The new voter approval rate, the next row, the new voter approval rate on that new average single family home would result in a tax bill of $1,057. call it $1,58 or $12.77 change. That one's up for the single f for the single family home, but the cumulative revenue is still down for the proposed. The final line, row three on your prior page, the numbers we gave you last Monday are still correct. The proposed 049, etc. is a $3145 increase on the average single family home and still equals the proposed budget. We've got a lot of work to do between here and getting to adopting tax rates and budgets, but just know that the bottom line remained correct. It was everything that changed starting at the top line. Clear as mud. All right. Any further questions? All right, I see none. Thank you, Mr. Atinson. Mayor. All right, we'll now take up our ceremonial items and I'm going to call on senior pastor Carlos Enoos with Redbud Baptist Church to lead us in our invocation after which our mayor pro Tim will lead us in our pledges to the uh United States and the Texas flags. Please stand as you're able. >> Thank you, Mayor. Would you join me in prayer? Heavenly Father, Lord, we are grateful to be here. We're thankful. We're a grateful city for your blessings upon us, for your care over us and for your watch over us. We are grateful, Lord, for our council who represents us and works on our behalf. And Lord, for that reason, I pray Lord and ask that you give them wisdom today as they deliberate, as they discuss, as they share. I pray God that in all that they do, wisdom from above would prevail. I pray for our citizens who are gathered here who will perhaps have input. Lord, may you guide them and direct them in their conversations and their words. Lord, may everything that happens here today uh be helpful to all of us as citizens of Lach because we are thankful and grateful for our community. And Lord, we pray that all that we do and all that we say would be glorifying to you. And Lord, I ask that and pray that in Jesus name. Amen. >> Thank you. Texas [Music] and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all the flaggis. [Music] Thank you pastor for your prayer. Um reminded again today as I mentioned last week during one of our work sessions uh member of our comm we're a praying community. You know most of the people I know uh uh pray for one another and pray for our needs and that's that's one wonderful thing about living in this community and uh there are a lot of needs. uh calling out anything in particular today is doesn't mean anybody else's needs or what they face is unimportant. But there's a person that we all deal with a lot and uh on he's served this city very uh much on many uh occasions and many boards and commissions, planning and zoning bond committees um and suffered a terrible accident last week and he is recovering somewhat from it but he faces a long uh road ahead. So, I encourage everybody uh to keep Jordan Wheatley in their prayers uh as he tries to make his recovery and uh hopefully uh Lord willing, he'll be able to keep his foot and uh so that's just something we're all uh thinking about and praying about. So, uh uh now we'll move forward uh as we always do. We have citizen comments at this time in our meeting. And just to remind everyone, according to our rules, any citizen wishing to appear in person before a regular meeting of the city council regarding any matter that's posted on our agenda completes a sign up form and turns it in before 2:00. Um, and please remember uh if we call you forward to give us your name and address and you will have three minutes to make your comments and a warning bell will sound when your 30 seconds are up. Do I Thank you. I'm going to try to organize these according to the budget item. I think they are organized already. Are you organized by the budget item already? Looks like they are. Okay. So, first of all, I'm going to call up uh Randy Christian. Randy, you here? I didn't see you there. You are hiding at the back. Uh speak on 6 point item 6.21. >> Good afternoon everyone. It's good to see you. I'll keep it very short, but what I wanted to do is to to publicly thank the group it's called Game Changers that is uh taking on the task of trying to raise $30 million to to put something incredibly beneficial to the entire city uh into Mallister Park because as many of you know I'm a pretty big proponent of Mallister. But if you look at the long range uh plans that have been put together for it that it has the potential of being something spectacular as years go by and it's just one step at a time. So hats off to these folks and I just wanted to publicly thank them for taking on that charge to try to make this uh uh ribbon cutting that will take place in five to six years uh for this facility out there. But thank you very much for your time. I always have to say that Mr. Christian, if you saw meeting me on the bounty, you know what I'm doing here. All right. Uh, next is Nicole Butler on 6.21. >> Good afternoon. Thank you. Uh, my name is Nicole Butler and I don't think that I can say it any better than Mr. Christian just said, but uh I'm in favor of our uh this is I'm representing Olympic Game Changers and uh we're here to propose our indoor court facility at uh Bill Mallister Park and um I'm here to answer any questions that y'all have. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Next uh these next few will be on item agenda item 7.13. So I'll call you up in order. Uh, Mary Kates. Thank you, Mayor and City Council. My name is Mary Kitz and my address is 46178 Street. I'm here to summarize the opposition to UDC proposed amendment number 31, which proposes a larger signage for select parking garages. The PNZ commission recently unanimously voted to not recommend that amendment to you. Please support that same decision. This amendment also does not meet the state's requirement for the city's orderly development in FAR versus Tippet Texas 1981. This amendment would be preferential treatment which defeats a pre-established comprehensive plan. It fails to regulate signage in a uniform or consistent manner. Per Texas local code section 211.004 004 zoning regulations must be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Instead, this amendment carves out a special exception for large garages without justifying why it's entitled for such special treatment. While this amendment seems to have been written for one proper for one property, the downside is that with more and more parking garages planned or in the works for Levik, particularly for student housing, there could be numerous overly large graphics advertising who knows what on 19th Street or University or elsewhere in the city. In West Texas, a deal's a deal. In 2012, Raider Park garage owner said that the ZBA's 7-year reapproval condition was more than fine with him. Well, the city should not change the UDC to appease a property owner while disregarding other businesses and love citizens. Is an increase in sign area for a parking garage an improvement for 272,000 citizens who live here? It's not. Le's a pro business city and that's a good thing. But this appeasement is really anti- business. Now think about that. It's anti- business because it's an unfair monopoly to a few business owners and a disadvantage to other business owners. It does not serve a good citywide purpose. We urge you to reject this unfair and illconceived amendment. Thank you and thank for thank you for all you do. >> Thank you, Mr. Krys. Next, uh David Henry. Mr. Henry, is Mr. Henry here? David Henry, 32112st Street, Love, Texas, 79410. And thank you for the opportunity to speak this this afternoon. Uh just this weekend, uh I had a friend come in town. uh been vacationing in New Mexico and on the way in I no prompting for me I promise. He said uh you know the drive-in was absolutely beautiful. There wasn't a billboard inside and I got to see this guy and I didn't say that. So that's from Clint Edwards. He lives in Bernie. So I'm here today to speak uh because of my opposition to the UDC proposed amendment that would allow larger signage area on large garages. this uh I'm asking you to reject this amendment for the following three reasons. One, love doesn't need even larger signs on large garages. Even pastors through town like like like my friend Clint uh don't want the city to look like where they live themselves. Two, it is just common sense that larger signs are distraction that can have fatal consequences in terms of car accidents. and three, the planning and zoning commission already unanimously rejected this amendment. So, I simply ask the council to follow the PNZ's commission's recommendation and please reject this amendment. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Henry. Next, uh Steven Faul 7.13. Mr. Mr. Mayor, member of this council, my name is Steven Faulk. I practice architecture at 2022 Broadway 79 401. Sorry, too many zip codes. I too am here to speak in opposition and ask you to reject item item 31 of the UDC amendments. It actually is 713B on your agenda. And I'm repeating from previous speakers, but this this item this matter has been around since 2012 when it was given a 7-year let's take a look at it before it was rejected by the same entity. Uh and the owner was advised to take them down. Took the sign down, did not take the backup down. So the canvas is still there. This is being done for the benefit of one owner from Cincinnati. This matter has been looked at by uh the members of various commissions have sat in your seats or previously other uh city hall over since 2012. And every time a variance has come up, it's been rejected. It's been rejected by council prior to your tenure. It has been totally unanimously eject rejected by the planning and zoning commission just recently and they had to vacate for some little windstorm or tornado. I asked you to reject it this evening or this afternoon in total item 31 of these UDC amendments. There is the potential if you approve it, you're going to open the door not for other parking garage, not only for other parking garages to have what is technically a billboard two to three times the size allowed by billboard for billboards, but any other building, including this building that has a blank wall. Let's just hang something advertising love, Texas off the west side of Citizens Tower. It could proliferate downtown. And when other parking structures are built, including some of those student housing projects, this is not an attractive thing for our city. A member of the of this council lost a a a friend or a family member to an accident that happened right in front of this garage. This is not sound planning. This is this is taking care of one entity. Has nothing to do with being pro business. My profession relies on pro business. But this one thing is not good planning. It will clutter the image of love, Texas, its skyline. It is a total distraction and is not even a wall sign. It's billboards. Again, I ask you to please reject this item. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Faulk. Next, Josh Senlles. He wants to speak on 7.8 and 7.14. >> Good afternoon, council. Joshua Shankles. I live in the 2600 block of 47th Street. I'm the managing director of the Love Compact Foundation and uh yeah, I'm going to take these out of order if you would be so kind. I'm I'm wanting to speak in favor of 714 as it has been written up um for you. Uh the I want to kind of remind you all that um well first I want to thank you for your forbbearance and letting me go on so long last time. I really appreciated being able to uh address many of those arguments. Uh so in a so forward way um I want to remind you council that this is a a regulatory matter and a fee structure and if a restaurant owner came to you and said your your fees are making my plate the cost of my plates go up and your regulatory structure is making the cost of my plates go up. You would not repeal your whole fee and regulatory structure to satisfy restaurant owners. Therefore, I think it is inappropriate for you to in repeal your uh fee structure for development if that is something that you are contemplating doing. Um quite contrary to what my organization is accused of, we want growth in our city. We want sustainable growth. And any home builder in the town will tell you, if you can't afford to pay your taxes and repair your home, then you can't afford to be a home bu owner a homeowner yet. And if you can't afford to build your city, if you can't afford to support the lowdensity sprawl that our city is engaged in, if you can't connect those neighborhoods so that a firetruck can get to them, if you can't uh deal with the drainage that putting increasing amounts of land area under non-permeable surfaces creates, then you can't grow your city. And that's one of the things that impact fees is meant to address is that we have to have the growth be sustainable growth and that includes some inwarddirected growth towards the middle part of our city which need not be forgotten about when we're thinking about all the new businesses and new homeowners on the edge of town. We need to not forget about the interest of existing businesses and homeowners in the middle of town who also want their neighborhoods to grow and for their neighbors businesses to grow. We want that growth. My organization wants that growth. Now about 78. Uh council, if it is your intention to add another member to the capital improvements advisory committee and outbalance the public interest with development interest, uh I think that would be a mistake and that would be um you know an unfortunate move for this council to make. And so if that is something that you're contemplating, I would urge you against it. And I think that the public deserves a robust debate as to why it is being contemplated and a justification of it. Thank you. >> Uh next, uh Sheila Patterson Harris. Saw her hiding over there. I speak on 2.1 and 7.14. >> Good afternoon, council. Mr. Mayor, you are the mayor and the other council members. I know you kind of forgot a few minutes earlier. I am here yet again to speak with regard to budgeting or the freezing of certain funds within the city's budget uh that had been established some time ago. specifically those related to the neighborhood planning program that allows citizens within communities, their organizations of neighborhood associations and whatnot to apply for those funds to make changes and improvements and lots of exciting things happen in their neighborhoods. I was on the council during that time and it has been some time when those funds were allocated and it came as a result of the 2040 plan and the fact that all of those funds have not been allocated to date is kind of a travesty. I believe that there are several and if Mr. Eric can vouch for me, there are several applications that were submitted in order to use those funds to make some changes. There's been a few things that have been funded. Those being street sign toppers. And if you come to the Chapman Hill neighborhood, you'll see the ones for the historical Chapman Hill neighborhood. Ask me why. And but there are other things that that neighborhood is seeking to do. And the ability for it to happen lies in the funding that was allocated by the city. I am aware that there are plans to continue to make these efforts happen by other means. But if that does not happen, and if it does not happen soon, I urge you to not freeze the funds that have been allocated for citizens at least three maybe four years ago because it's very important to to them. In reference to 714, it's no new news, especially to the developers of this city, that I was in favor of the 50% for the impact fees. I am still in favor of that. However, if that is not something that takes place, I would ask that we remain the we have the fees remain at the 25% mark. I had the the privilege of uh watching impact fees actually contribute to a huge roadway, a portion of it in the eastern portion of the city. And had it not been for impact fees, I do not believe that this project would have got off the ground. So I want to say to you council men and women and Mr. mayor because you are the mayor that I ask that you not freeze or find other means to provide citizens within their neighborhoods funding to make their projects happen and partner with the city. In addition, I ask that you rem have impact fees remain that they are remain at 25% and I have no problem with 50. Thank you. >> Thank you. Always good to see you. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Now go back to being grandma. Chad C. Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Chad C. I live at 114 North Veil Avenue, 79416. I'm here to discuss the impact fees. Um, we can all call these impact fees when we really know what they are as a tax. We have developers out here that are charged with these impact fees. They personally do not pay these impact fees. They have to add it to the bottom line to the houses they actually sell. Well, the people that are already paying taxes on these houses, that's what we pay for city services. We pay our taxes for this. Why do we have to actually ask them to pay an additional tax that is collected by the developers? Now, I actually work for some of the developers here as a contractor. I know how expensive these projects are. And we're asking them to risk their money plus collect the taxes for the city and put their money at risk when maybe it's better for them with the current interest rates. They just hold on to their money. That's why as a former county commissioner, I always seen a lot of people leaving the city. And I'd ask them no one reason. Why do you want to move to the county? The county is running out of water. Well, we're tired of the fees. We're tired of the taxes. I said, "Well, you're running a risk of drilling well and getting nothing." So, I encourage them to work with the city because the county is in the same shape that you're in. We're struggling for the same tax base and it's getting hard to cover all this. Um, with these fees, I've heard that well, it's only fair that these fees are given to the people that are actually growing in these areas. Well, if that was a fairness deal, why do we have bonds in? Because I'm actually paying for bonds that were passed last year that go on to Upland. I may never drive on Upland, but as a taxpayer in the city of Leach, I want to see my my town succeed. I want to see it grow. And with our tax base actually growing, that's actually going to help you bring your rates down as we grow. But if we continue to raise the fees, there's no incentive for the developers to keep developing. And that's only going to see a more t a bigger tax burden on the taxpayers. And as we all know, the reason that it's called a fee is so we don't have to call it a tax. Because if you call it a tax, it's going to have to be put into the rate, which if you add that fee into the rate, now we have to go to the voters for an election, which is something that cost even more because once you put out the election, the city has to pay for that election. So I encourage that you reduce these impact fees to the developers so we can help the city of Le to continue to grow. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. >> Thank you, Mr. Seat. Chris Chambers. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Council. My name is Chris Chambers and I work at Chambers Engineering. We office over at 5501 Spurge 327. Really weird day. I get to share the podium with a classmate and peers on the same day to talk about the same item. But I want to share with you one experience about the impact fees. We were contracted by an architect to do the engineering on the falls um tennis center. That center had a finite budget. The impact fees ended up being more than our AE fees on the project. I asked you to consider all considerations when you're looking at these impact fees. I urge you to reduce those impact fees because it does affect small business small businesses just like mine. With that, I'll leave it with you. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chambers. Uh Justin Narren. >> Thank you, Mayor Councel. Today I'm representing uh Narendon Group, Covenant Health, Dega Capital, Hajes Development, as well as Canyon West and uh the now getting built Covenant Park. We've seen a number of negative impact uh on the uh leasing side of things. We recently had a couple of uh small restaurants that opened up and the fees were basically half of their first year rent. So basically uh $15 to $16 a square foot is what they're seeing. There was some anger, some animosity, and really some confusion from the business owners. One of that is, you know, why should my sandwich shop be paying about five times what the coffee shop is paying when they have the same amount of traffic going through the drive-thru? Um, we've had people say, "Hey, I'm not sure I want to do my next franchise here. I don't have to pay these in Amarillo. I don't have to pay these in Oklahoma City." So it has made it pretty difficult but basically what we're you know what our goal is is to create new business to create a uh quality of life um try to generate um you know places like Canyon West that uh is about a $300 million annual revenue. the uh Target, your SAMs, your Altas, your uh Salt Grass, you're looking at about a $300 million tax base on sales tax, give or take a few for the groceries and Target and things like that. So, what we basically see that as is it trickles down to the neighboring businesses. they're able to pull in and a different uh you know, basically you're building your tax base all up and down Milwaukee. The last thing is when we're trying to get the new project off the ground such as a an entertainment anchor, uh, such as a movie bowl grill, one thing that I think a lot of people are not realizing is a large percentage of who goes and spends money in the city of are coming from Brownfield, Big Spring, Plane View, Levelan, Clovis. That money is coming into the city that is getting a sales tax put onto it as part of that $300 million of just the one project. We are trying to build a an entertainment anchor that's going to generate probably 20 to 22 million a year that will get sales tax on it that will help everyone and improve the quality of life which is what we really want to do. It's it's a quality of life issue and we feel that uh it's also helping balance budgets in doing so. Thank you. Thank you. Next call. Mlendon. Thank you, council. Item 7.14 is a proposal to increase impact fees. Please do not do that. Um there have been several arguments um presented over the course of this process that I wanted to address. I won't address the arguments from the people in favor of impact fees addressing corruption or threats against any. We'll move past that. I will say that one of the arguments is degrowth. It is a given that impact fees are an instrument of degrowth. They are a headwind for our community. That's what they're designed to do. In a budget designed and dependent on sales tax remittances, it's counterproductive to disincentivize new household formation, who are sales taxpayers, and small businesses who are sales tax remitts. You're costing yourself money. Both of those groups also pay adalorum tax. Stop being a headwind against them, please. Impact fees are not a reserve for city coffers. They are an explicit promise to match those funds three to one. Impact fees pull money out of the city city's budget for that program and put you on the clock and on a deadline and force you to bring your $3 for everyone. That ratio is most destructive to the city's budget in the parts of city that are least connected and least dense. If there is an agreement to pay for a project in the least dense, least connected portion, that money has to come from somewhere. And that means less money for districts one and districts two and districts three and district six. They pull money out of the reserves. There are three places you can get the money. You can give it back. You can get it from the general budget or you can get it from bonds. So the second argument, how dare you go to the voters for bonds? How dare you ask to pay for city infrastructure from bonds? What could be more fair than asking the citizens of where they want to spend their infrastructure dollars? That's a fair thing to do. The city's part of this budget is the part of infrastructure that ties us together as a city. The developer provides the things that tie the development together. The city provides that portion of infrastructure budget that ties the city together. And what could be more fair than asking the city to play its part in that regard? I was as confused and surprised and delighted with the with the study that presents this proposal as you were. What do we get for it? We get a system that is expensive to administer which has resulted in less than 5% of the overall funds committed to thoroughfare infrastructure since the inception of this project. Bonds have paid the other 95%. And you get to choose. Do you reach into the pockets of new home build buyers, new business locations? Where do you get your money? I say choose neither. Set impact fees at zero. >> Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Uh, Robert Wood. giving you all a deal that I think is going to be on the screen, but I heard you have problems. So, I'm Robert Wood, 8213 Al Cove Avenue here in Lok. U appreciate y'all taking time for us today. Hang on. Start my three minutes over. >> Is it? >> Yes, I get to start over. >> You're supposed to say I reclaim my time. I think >> Hey, that's what they're passing out to you. So, this will help us a little bit. Uh, I represent the zero impact fee task force. Obviously, Jordan Wheatley usually stands here and does this for us, but we didn't want to have to prop him up. So, I represent the West Texas Homebuilders, Love Department Association, Association of Realtors, and the Love Chamber of Chamber of Commerce, and I also am the chair of the chamber this year. If you're here with one of those businesses or organizations, would you please stand? >> Thank you. This conversation has always been about funding the growth of love. It's really not. It's about the organizations that have spent months reviewing the data and the outcomes and what is truly best for the future of this city. Slide three. I don't know how to make all this go. How do I make this go? Somebody else make it go here. Here. There we go. Uh we who we represent. We are united in a purpose advocating for smart growth policies and unintended burdens for love families, renters, and mostly important small business owners. Slide four. The city's own comprehensive plan adopted in 2021 recommends road bonds, not impact fees. The funding tool for infrastructure, pages 101 and 136 of that document are clear. Road bonds align with our community's shared vision. That's already defined on notes. It hooked it. All right. So, I'm going to skip all that. It's a myth that developers absorb impact fees. The truth is, as a developer, I've never written a check for an impact fee unless I'm building a home and then I get to write that check whenever I pull the permit. The reality is the cost is passed down resulting in higher home prices, rents, and has brought to your attention earlier businesses that have to pay these costs before they can get a permit to to build their projects. It's a hidden tax on the residents of Lev. Each new home in the city of Lev contributes an average of $12,000 in local tax revenue in its first year alone and more in the years that follow. Growth pays for growth, not to mention what new businesses bring in. We we are seeing development move outside the city limits to avoid fees as moving to Woler, Shallowwater, Hadeloo, New Home and other communities where we can avoid these these fees and taxes. That is not what we need for the city of Lok. We need those taxes to to continue to grow Lok in our parks, police, and other services. Since 2021, voter approved bonds have generated $34 million compared to just $12 million in impact fees. Voters have shown their smart support and transparent investments. In closing, impact fees are not sustainable or a fair solution for love. Let's build build on the proven success of road bonds, voter trust, and the legacy of transparent growth. Thank you for your service and your time. Can answer any questions if you need. >> Thank you'all. Uh, Victoria Whitehead. >> Hi, Victoria Whitehead. Uh, 45141 11th Street. Um, I'm the CEO of the West Texas Homebuilders Association and a proud um, resident of District 6. WTHBA represents 700 plus business members in the Levit community who proudly unite to support this community with the primary focus on housing affordability and accessibility. As we wrap up this journey, I hope you kind of remember some of my former comments of what does new home growth bring? But I want to bring a couple new insights to you. Again, the average home price of the 446 of the 588 total permits pulled to date was $226,000. There are over 115,000 families in the city of Levik that want to live in a new home but can't afford one. 75 more families join that list every time we increase the home price of $1,000. As you guys are aware, we have other things impacting home affordability right now. Tariffs on lumber are about to increase over 35%. Home affordability and accessibility is not getting better. And you have the option today to help make that not be the choice here in Levik, Texas. Houses drive business and our and business is our greatest funding tool to keeping property taxes low and the roadway maintenance funded. Rooftops matter to economic growth in this community. Our growth has been in Cooper and Friendship ISD districts, but that growth is predominantly in the west and northwest. This past year, June 1st, 2024 to June 30th, 2025, 690 single family residential permits were pulled south of 66th Street. That's compared to 899 single family residential permits that were pulled north of 66th Street. This isn't a north versus south, east versus west situation. It's a whole community situation. All this to say, hos houses drive small businesses. Many of my builders also build commercial property. Um, and many are seeing a lot of empty uh business lots and empty business uh shell space that's not being developed because citizens and small businesses are not planning for the impact of these impact fees. As a reminder, you have multiple tools in your toolbox. Um, and we are asking you to pause this program, cut the head off the snake, figure out how to best go about this garden of growing love. You have to partner with us in a more efficient way. Um, there are many programs in your toolbox. Also, it's not just road bonds. Milwaukee was not built with a road bond. There are a lot of things that we can do and a lot of great ways where we can get lawyers, engineers, finance folks in the room. Let's find out and make a long-term planning solution for our community. This vote is a defining vote for housing affordability and it's a defining vote for the pro businessfriendly community. I'm strongly asking you today to vote for affordable housing and pro business and set the rate at zero. >> Thank you, Miss Whitehead. So, that concludes our citizen comments. I have no other names up here who signed up in advance. So, we'll now close the citizen comments. Um, we'll now take up item 5.1, the minutes from our July 8th regular city council meeting. You've had those uh sent to you, had time to review them. Is there a motion to approve items 5.1? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? Any changes, alterations? >> I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. >> I. Any post say nay. I hear none. The motion passes uh unanimously. Those minutes are adopted. All right. We'll now take up uh the consent agenda located as item six on our agenda. There's been a request to pull items 611, 616, 619, and 621. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items 6.11, 6.16, 6.19, and 6.21. Is there such a motion? >> Have a motion. We have a second. >> Second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. That motion is passed unanimously. All right. Because the subject matter of item 6.11 relates to item 7.14 on our uh regular agenda. I'm going to move consideration of 6.11 until after the council takes up item 7.14. So we'll now take up item 6.16. And I'm going to call on uh Dr. Wells. You here? There you are. Director of our public uh health to provide a staff briefing on this matter. Good afternoon, council. Um, I'm here about item um 16. This is our a renewal. Well, it's an extension of a program that the health department's been doing since 2020. Um it's a program that employs community health workers which are um basically lay people in the community um that we can train around certain public health issues or health issues and the goal is for them to go out and provide that information to other members of our community. Um this grant is for um $464,000. um from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. Um it employs five staff and it is um primarily around um working with individuals that have substance use disorder or at risk of substance use disorder um trying to connect them um into um programs and services in our community. Um I'm happy to provide any additional information or answer any questions. >> Mr. machine. >> Other than uh staff overhead, what else will the grant money be spent on? >> Um the grant money allows us to um buy supplies for the community such as Narcan um to re to reverse overdoses. Um it also allows us to provide some financial support um to community members up to $250 per person. And what can the financial support? You're just is this giving cash to someone who participates in? >> We never give cash to a client. Um, this allows us to help meet immediate needs for individuals that are kind of in that transition process of looking to go into either um inpatient substance use treatment or coming out of treatment. It allows us to help individuals that are coming out of the justice system um with um assistance such as co-pays for a medication. Um we can help with um the first week at a sober living facility. Um we can help individuals that um maybe just got a new job but they don't have any money and they need steeltoed boots or special shoes for working in a restaurant. We're able to purchase that. um be able to purchase wound care supplies um things like that. >> Mayor Prom. >> Thank you, Dr. Wells. This is a a very good grant. I know that the community health worker program has become a trend across the United States. Very impactful. I think I also appreciate it because I've seen it help veterans. For me, that is very important. It's one of the items that I take a lot of pride or a group that is. So, I want to thank you for all the work that you have done to obtain this type of grant. Thank you. >> And uh Dr. Wills, just is this a new program? Is this the first year we've gotten this grant or is it an ongoing? >> This year, um sorry, go ahead. Um this is a program that started in 2020. Um the state usually awards grants in kind of four or fiveyear chunks. Um and every year I bring you a renewal. Um however, this is a new grant cycle if that makes sense. Um so this one is for this year and then they're saying that they're going to fund it for at least three years and then possibly an additional two years. And that's typically how these grants >> are something we've been involved with in the past. >> Yeah. The staff are already employed. um they're working you know at the health department. >> These five that it funds are already there and this will be continuation of their services. >> Yes. So this would be money starting for their salaries and the other services starting um September 1st of this year. >> All right. Uh Mayor Pim, >> I do want to add that although it's new to Texas, this has been a national initiative for over 20some years. So, it has demonstrated that it is effective and impactful. And I think the best part is that you're saying sending these lay people out to do one- on-one work with individuals that may need just a little bit more attention. So, that's why the lay person part of it is so effective because it, you know, anybody willing to go through that training, which that's the other part. Don't don't all the community health workers have to go through training? Yes, there is a community health worker certificate. Um, however, the minimum requirements to enter that certificate program is a GED. Um, you're not required to have um a college degree. So, some of the community health workers that work for us are um individuals that are in recovery themselves or um people that have been a stay-at-home mom for 10 years and now want to get out into the workforce. and we've been able to provide um the ability for them to get that certificate and um some on job training and then they've stayed with us as full-time city employees. >> And the training is is more than it's not like a week or two. It's it's extensive. >> No, it's about a six-month program. Um and we have a partnership with Texas Tech Health Science Center School of Nursing um that provides the training for us. >> Yes. Thank you, >> Mr. Rose. >> Uh thank you, Dr. Wells. Uh just so the public knows um the the grant is for 464,000. Correct. >> Correct. >> And to get that grant, it's handcuffed to the city um matching um 5%, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I just wanted to make make sure that that everyone knew. I mean, I think spending 23,000 to receive 464,000 um is a is a good spend for our community. >> Yeah. And with um most of our grant matches, we're able to use funding that um has already been allocated to the health department by the city. So we match with a portion of our assistant director's salary. >> Um so we're not asking for additional funding for the match. We're using that in kind support of having that um assistant director be able to support having running this program. >> Sure. Thank you. So it's kind of an inkind cont. >> Yes. We sometimes use IT services. We can use um some of the general revenue. Um >> All right. >> Different. >> Any further questions? >> All right. Thank you, Dr. Wells. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there a motion now to approve item 6.16? >> So move. >> Is there a second? A second. Any further discussion? I see none. So all in favor of item 6.16, please let it be known by saying I. >> I. Any post say nay. >> And I note that that uh motion was approved. It carries on a 6 to1 vote. All right. We'll now take up item 6.19. I call on Jared Atinson. Um, actually I have here Well, you you say what you're going to say here. >> Bet bet you've already got it, mayor. Thank you all. Um, council, with your permission, I'd request to pull this from today and bring it back August the 26th. I flat ran out of time with stuff to to get you the correct information. >> Is there any opposition to moving that off? Do we have to have a motion on that or just ask? Okay, we have a motion. Okay. Is there a motion to postpone that to our next regularly scheduled city council meeting? Do I have a motion for that? >> So move. >> Have a second. I have a second. Any discussion? I hear none. All in favor let me know by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. That passes unanimously. All right. Now we'll take up item 6.21. And I'm calling on Brooker. >> Mr. Mayor, we now hold a a late inning substitute. We're going to bring up Mr. Colobby Van Gundy, your parks director. >> All right. Thank you. Sorry, I'm not >> You did not look You weren't wearing a coordinated pants suit today. >> There's no way to match her and her dress. So, go. So, um, Mayor Council, item 6.21 is a a consideration for a commitment agreement with Love Game Changers to build a 137,000 square foot facility in Mallister Park would sit on about 20 acres of of land there. Uh the proposal is for a seven court facility um basketball courts and then 13 volleyball courts that would be able to use utilize those courts. And so today with us we have uh Dr. Brett Butler and his wife Nicole Butler and they are here to um give a presentation I believe um if you need it or answer any questions you may have about this item. >> All right. Do we have a presentation? >> We don't need to. >> Come on. So, let's uh go ahead and let you do your presentation, whatever it is, then we can ask you questions. Maybe you're gonna answer all questions. >> I'll try to give you the the shortest version that I can to make this as quick as possible. So, my name is Dr. Rhett Butler. Uh I work with the oncology department at UMC. We've lived in Levik for about four years now. I was I've been a basketball coach for 30 years. I've also been a basketball referee for about that same amount of time. And I thought I was retired until my son watched a Space Jam a few years ago and he decided he wanted to play basketball. And after that, we started traveling because he was very dedicated. We started traveling to all these tournaments out of town and and every time we would go out of town to to play, my wife would say, "Why don't we have something like this in love? Why don't we have something like this in love?" And so this is where the idea for the this this uh sports facility came from. And so our vision is to bring a world-class facility right here at home. Okay. uh something that the city can be proud of that the kids can grow up in a a wonderful opportunity to play. Uh this is the kind of the the way the building will look. Uh Jake and Martin are the the architects for this building. Um key features as I said about 140,000 square feet on 20 acres. uh 12 regulation volleyball courts, uh uh six regulation basketball courts, plus a stadium which seats 2,000 people, which and also features the ASB glass floor system, which you might have seen in the NBA All-Star game, which is going to be the only one of its kind in the United States. Uh permanent floor. This is the layout of the building. Uh you can see as you walk in the the front of the building, there's a going to be a food court on the right. We're planning hopefully to have a sports medicine clinic on the left as well as wait room. Uh and then you the the courts are on one level downstairs and the stands as you can see on the second floor are upstairs which is very important keeping the the crowd separate increasing visibility and making a better overall experience for everybody who's uh in attendance. Uh so some of the the pictures of what what you're going to see in this facility down at the bottom left you're going to see what the stadium's going to look like. uh uh we don't have the glass floor on on that uh particular rendering. Uh and then the the bigger big six what we're calling them right now is is is on the other side here. Uh walking into the the lobby, you're going to see where the fans get to go upstairs uh and the players go downstairs. Um so this is kind of what I was talking about in the stadium. I think every kid in America is going to want to come play on this. When my boy saw that we were going to do this, he was overwhelmed with joy. So, I think this is going to be a lot of fun. Uh there's some of the I'm not going to get into all this this stuff. Justification for uh the location and all that stuff. Uh economic impact. This is a big deal though right now currently with the facilities we have. The e economic impact here in Lebec is you know over the last couple years you can see 12 and 15 million dollars respectively. We think we're going to be bringing uh between 2500 and 3,000 people into LEC almost every weekend of the year with a facility like this. Okay. So, uh which is far beyond what we've done with uh the the two facilities that we have in place right now. um operations. We are planning to make this available to uh love citizens for both drop in and league as well as court rentals which is desperately desperately needed for all the leagues that we have particularly for volleyball too. Uh so it's our our plan as far as public use. Uh we're we are planning this as a a nonprofit um because we want to be able to pour the money back into the programs as opposed to kind of what we've seen before here in in Levik. We maybe the for-profit model doesn't promote the sustainability of the facilities as well. And so, uh, as a nonprofit, we get to pour back into the facility and, you know, things like, uh, scholarships and features for, uh, all the players and youth, you youth athletes that are coming through our programs. Our timeline that you can see here, the way we have it kind of conceptualized right now is to, uh, hopefully begin construction in at the beginning of 2028. Obviously, uh, we've been waiting for this meeting today for almost two years. Uh we've been working on this trying to get here to today. Um and we've already started some conversations kind of behind the scenes with with uh some donors and things like that. So uh I'm hopeful that this can be expedited and we can get this done sooner than what we originally projected, but this is the the idea. Um, and then there's some more information in this in this about, you know, h where we're planning to get the uh the the the financials, where the the donations are going to be coming from, uh, that you can go into in detail or if you have a particular uh, question about, I'd be happy to or we would be happy to answer those questions for you. And so there there's as fast as I can get through it. So, >> all right. Uh, questions. Mayor Pro Tim, >> I'm going to give you a chance to catch your breath. >> Did I do that without taking a breath? I might have. Okay. All right. >> This is a great project for the city. It will definitely be a plus. My only concern was one little thing, which was a big thing was the sign, but I think you modified >> the building. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we've worked on the design based on our conversation before uh to more seamlessly fit it into the design of the of the the building. Essentially, it's a it's a LED sign on the front of the the building to that we would use to promote events. Uh also, uh sponsors and things like that that that are sponsoring youth sports in in love. You I think you guys all know the the people who would be, you know, like Wentz Orthodontics and things like that. Give them a chance to say, you know, we love uh love sports. Um, and you know this is I I'll just tell you when we first came up with this a couple of years ago, a little over two years ago, we were driving by Mallister Park and I looked over and I said, "Well, there it is. That's the perfect spot in Levik for this. The hotels are already in place. How about if we have a tourist destination for athletics?" And so that was that's how this all kind of came came up with that particular spot, too. And so here we are all these years later. >> Um, no doubt that so often we take dollars out of luck instead of bringing them in. So that's great. I one more time on the signs. Can we put sponsors on those SP signs, Jared? >> My understand not certain on that. The rest of it absolutely they can do, but we we can work to clarify that. >> Yes. So, I'll speak to that. Um, our nonprofit consultant, um, you know, as we're developing this nonprofit, we know that we cannot, um, present this as advertising. So, for us to, um, make sure that this fits within our mission and within our nonprofit model, um, we have to offer a sponsorship appreciation, um, opportunity. So if they want to, you know, donate $20,000 for the year for so many impressions, there cannot be any call to action. So it would have to say so and so orthodontics supports, you know, the girls volleyball tournament this weekend, you know, go whatever. And so there can't be any call to action. Um, and as far as the IRS goes, we would be okay with our nonprofit. But yeah, that would be up to you guys for us to uh commit to a a sign agreement uh that is in accordance with the city rules. >> Sure. >> Mr. Glen, >> I understand you've structured this as a nonprofit, but what what is the financial model that will uh sustain the overhead and the operation of the facility? >> I'm going to I'm going to let my wife speak to this one if you don't mind. Um so on the screen here are uh kind of a condensed uh version of the categories that will uh bring in it's our operations that will bring in the funds to um operate the facility. Um our our main uh operations the revenue streams are um of course court rental and tournament fees and uh the sponsor appreciation screen. So, we do intend uh to utilize that and uh receive income uh by by our partnerships with with everybody that we're partnering with. Um our corporate uh sponsors will be able to they can classify it however they want. If they want to do advertising or donation, but for us it's sponsor appreciation, um memberships, drop in fees. Um we still will have some individual donations. We will have a fundraising team. We do not plan on this requiring us to, you know, always campaign and always, you know, have to get donations. This is a self-sustaining facility. >> And I would and I would add to that that, you know, a good model for what we're doing has been done in Abalene within the last 10 years. Okay. And so many of the um the fundraising approaches but as well the facility ma management and maintenance have been learned from what they've done with the the Dodge Jones uh facility in Abalene. The architects who are design who have designed this building are the same ones who designed that building and in the same builder as well. And so, uh, we've kind of taken what they've done, learned from it, and are working on make tightening the screws and making it a little more efficient as we go here. >> And so, I understand with with the agreement that we're looking at today, it's just that we're, you know, we're not going to be uh using the land for other purposes, but as you're looking at your fundraising efforts, do you intend to ask the city for any financial contribution to support the project? >> Uh, not at this time. Uh we did work very closely with uh the parks and recck department and um we're very clear on the fact that we cannot um you know ask anything of the current council that would impact the next council. Um we also know that until we've reached 85% of our funding requirement that we we're not even going to entertain those conversations um with anything that the city would support. So what this is asking is that you allow us to use the land or for you know no other purpose except for what um we want to do with it while we're raising the 85%. >> Would you also agree to not count any contributions from city related entities like market love or love sports authority towards that fundraising goal? >> Yes. Uh we're we're going to refrain from asking for any support until we've kind of proven a track record. Um there will be uh some nonprofit I mean I know UMC is on our list there there are places like that that may be somewhat connected to the city but there are no asks this at this time for any m municipalities >> and I would once again I would point to the new facility that Midland is building currently right now once again showing us a road map of how this can be done without having to ask the city essentially for anything. Our goal is to ask nothing of the city as a as a 100% 3P or private public partnership to to get this done. Uh and you know, could we do this as a a for-profit in some other area of town? Yes, it could be done. Um but nothing is going we feel that the impact to Leach in that location with those businesses around uh and that the the sports tourism component of this is going to be the most impactful thing is for for everybody not just for you know kids that play basketball and volleyball too. So >> Mr. Collins you as as the mayor poor Tim said I think this is a fantastic project and certainly wish wish you the best and to the best of my knowledge there's no plans for this particular property within the next couple of years and and so I I don't really have an issue with dedicating the property to your project um contingent upon the things that we have in our agreement. What I would ask uh for us to consider as a council is to maybe have a one-year look at this uh with the provisions that we might change our minds depending on where your fundraising uh stands at that time to give us the opportunity to say yes, we feel comfortable that this is going to work or or and you as well. >> So you're saying come back in a year and see where we are. Yeah, I'm perfectly fine. Of course. And and if we and if we come back and say we've raised $2 million, then we may say this this project isn't going to work. And if you've raised 25 or 30, uh then then I think we are comfortable extending this. But I' I'd like to have an idea. This is this is I've been involved with these and this is a very challenging thing and I commend you for taking it on because it is going to be a challenge for you in the next couple of years uh to raise these funds and I hope you succeed. >> I do too. >> Thank you. Does that have to be this proposal is just for you to enter into an agreement with them without us setting any particular conditions on you? Uh I mean we do have a resolution here. Is that consistent with the resolution that you've >> I mean you you can you can move when it comes time to approve um the discussion. You can make that part of a motion to amend that they come back and report within a year. Um you certainly can add that to it if you'd like. It's the agreement really is just an agreement on our part, not for us to use that property in the meantime. That's really all that's in there on our part, but um but you certainly could add that if you wanted to. Yeah, I just trying to figure out how to So, yeah, to make clear to everybody, our commitment as far as this is stated here is just to commit not to use that property for any other use up until a point in which you have raised >> 85% of the funds to hold it until that time and then we can enter into a further agreement. There's your two years >> two years a two-year period time for you to get to that >> revisited at that time is my understanding, right? got to come back and >> yeah so it's essentially what you were saying but instead of one year it was two years >> okay all right so further questions then yes Mr. Gosin >> and this might be better directed to Mr. Wade, if if we want to amend the terms of the agreement, is it most practical for us to let's say postpone this for a week and allow revisions on the agreement then? What or can we can we add these amendments to the agreement approve it today? >> Can I ask a quick question before you answer? Is there is there a plan for is there another proposal for that land that is impending that? >> No. And and I'm sorry if you don't mind. I' I'd like to get an answer to my question. So it either either way is really is fine. It obviously it's cleaner if you postpone it and we come back and and you have it exactly in front of you um how you want it changed. That certainly is the cleanest way to do it. Um but you know it all also kind of depends on how complicated you're going to sit there and amend the agreement. Right? If it's just hey we want you to come back and you shall do a report to the city council within a year. You know, that's pretty easy for me to sit there and include in the agreement. >> Well, and Mr. Mayor, if it's timely, I'd like to make a motion on this item. >> Let's finish Let's finish the discussion first and then we'll take that up when we get ready for that. Okay. Because I think Mr. Rose had a question or comment and then Dr. Wilson. >> Hey, thank you guys. And um we're so excited for your endeavor and um we're uh hoping that uh you can can raise the money and that um this goes through. it would be a a super asset for Levik and we're we're also excited for it. Um and I I don't it's not costing us anything to set the land aside and um at at this moment I'm ready to I would be fine with voting and moving forward. I think we're um there's no reason to bring these these folks back uh here and and we appreciate you uh coming out today and and and showing us showing us this. But I I don't think there needs to be any amendment to anything. I think I'm ready to move forward on it. So, thank you guys so much. >> There we go. Thank you guys for being here. I know we've been working on this for a while. Um, and finally, here we are to finally make the ask. Um, I agree with Councilman Rose. What a tremendous opportunity for the Love community, for our youth out here, and thank you guys for all of the hard work that you have put into this. I know it has been what y'all have lived and breathed now for a while. Um I also agree with Councilman Rose. This is a two-year agreement. It takes while a little while to raise that money. We want to encourage you to go do that. I do not think that you need to be back here in a year to have to see what you've raised in a year. If this was a 10-year agreement, I think we would sit otherwise. And we had talked about the length of that agreement previously. Um and so I'm in favor of voting on it as of right now the way it is. And good luck to you guys. >> Thank you. Any further questions? Um, and just to reiterate, you you've looked at the Dodge Jones uh center in Abalene. >> Yes, sir. >> And does that have a sponsorship uh signage on it? >> So, it's a Abalene Youth Sports Authority is the uh they raise their money through that. I don't think there is a corporate sponsor. >> They're a little bit different. Yeah. So there's there's not a company that named that building. Right. Right. >> That is Right. >> Right. And the the Dodge Jones, I guess, foundation underwrote a lot of that >> particular project. Yours is a little bit different setup, but it's shown to be a successful model at least in Abalene. And I' I've seen >> the one that is in Midland. They were able to >> Round Rock. I think I've visited one. >> The Round Rock one as well. But uh the Midland, they're currently building a facility similar to this. won't be as fabulous as ours. I don't think we'll see. Uh but uh they've also shown uh how how quickly this can be done privately. So we have a model there as well. >> And to be clear, we have no intentional use for it within the two-year period. We've got nothing on the drawing boards. >> That's I was just curious. >> That is correct. >> Okay. All right. All right. Any further questions? All right. If not, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Uh, is there a motion to approve item 6.21? >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Discussion. Mr. Basheen. >> I'm uh okay with approving the agreement today, but I think we need to add a an explicit condition that the 85% fundraising target will not include any uh pledge or contributions from city or city related entities. So whether that's the parks and recreation, city general fund, civic love, love sports authority, any of these other organizations that could financially contribute um we need to ensure that that's not part of the that's not credited towards the fundraising goal. >> So I um >> you're making that as a motion? >> Yes. And >> I move I move to amend that um we add clarifying language that the 85% will not the 85% goal will not include any contribution from city or city related entities. >> Is there a second for that amendment to the motion? >> Second. >> We have a second. Any discussion on that amendment? Mr. Rose, >> I I don't think there should be um any I don't know why we're putting handcuffs on something that's not that's not being asked. Um so I don't agree I don't agree with the amendment to um when they're not even coming to ask for that. We're we're just setting aside land today and and I just don't see the point of it. Well, I'd say if if they're not asking for for city dollars, and I think it's commendable that they want to undertake this fundraising effort, but we've seen too many projects that start out with the intention of utilizing only private funds and then city contributions seep in over time and and are used to help move the goalpost. So I think we should if we're going to begin uh the study of this project and begin working together, we should begin on very clear terms at the beginning that the city is not committing to any financial contribution at this point and will not give credit towards 85% on any city dollars of any form. >> Okay. Any further discussion of that amendment to the motion? Mayor, I might have a question for Council Member Glasheen. You mentioned civic level public supports authority. I assume any economic Are you trying to say anything that's supported by U municipal sales tax dollars or any anything like that? >> Yes. Uh general fund sales tax, hotel occupancy tax or the economic development related entities. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rose. So if we're talking about hotel occupancy tax, I mean those are for economic development. So um I want to handcuff this project to if if there were short something and needed something and hotel occupancy tax which is for growing your city that we would handcuff this project and not being able to use those dollars. >> It's not this is not a permanent handcuff. This is just saying that for purpose of reaching the 85% fundraising goal, not going to count city dollars. It wouldn't the provision wouldn't even eliminate the possibility that the city or one of the related entities does want to financially contribute to the project. It could be in that 15% for example, but we're not we're not going to at the beginning leave the door open for this to be a primarily city funded project. >> Okay. And that's how I understood his motion too, that it was only for the 85%. It didn't foreclose any commitments after that. Is that you understand that? Okay. >> I I understand the motion. >> Okay. Just want to make clear. Um Okay. So, we have a motion and a second uh to amend and uh we've had a discussion. Any further discussion? Um I don't we need this recorded. I I just need to be able to see everybody's vote somehow. Uh can we record this? So all in favor of amendment that Mr. Gashine has uh offered, please let you know vote now. All right, that amendment passes five to two. All right, thank you. So now we go back to the motion as amended. >> That's correct. >> And vote on it. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So >> unless there are any other motions. >> All right. But we already have a motion and a second on that. That's right. >> And so any further discussion on the motion as amended and I've got to get my I see none. All right. So all in favor of the motion as amended, please let it be known by saying I. >> I. Any oppose? Say nay. >> Nay. >> I hear one. All right. So that motion passes six to one. >> Thank you. All right. Well, I think I could I was able to follow that one. Have to look both ways. better if I probably sat at one end of the day so then I could just look down the whole list and see who's voting how, you know, instead of have to do this every time, see where everybody's coming out here. All right, so um council is now going to take up our regular agenda and we will start with board appointments uh items agend agenda item 7.1 through 7.7 and so I'm going to call on city secretary provide a briefing on each of these together as one presentation if you don't mind. >> Okay. Thank you, mayor. Um the first item 7.1 is regarding appointments to the building board of appeals. Currently being recommended um is Ben Jordan to replace Jacob Kirkland in a commercial contractor position for a citizen position. The recommendation is to promote Donovan Beckwith who currently serves in an alternate position and to replace Mr. Beckith in the alternate position, Shannon Powell. Moving to 7.2. two. This is um consider appointments to the Bell Farms Public Improvement District PID Advisory Board. These PID boards are held are handled a little bit differently as their property owners um vote on their membership and those votes are then presented to you all as recommendations. Um the Bell Farms PID held their annual property uh meeting on July 24th, 2025. Um that consists of 2,86 lots. Nine ballots were received. The two individuals with the most votes and being recommended for the upcoming positions are James Smith and Trace Moore. Appointments to the North Point Public Improvement District. They had their annual property owner meeting on July 23rd and they have 758 lots and 14 ballots were received. The three individuals with the most votes were Eden Shelton, Charlotte McCarti, and Donnie Carrasco. the Quincy Park Public Improvement District Advisory Board. They held their annual property owners meeting on July 22nd. Um, this pit consists of 695 lots and seven ballots were received. The three individuals with the most votes are Paul Shuy, Nathan King, Nathan Nick Saunders. Item item 7.5 the love water advisory commission. Per resolution creating this board um the council shall appoint the chair and vice chair. Being recommended for chair is Ted Cleveland and being recommended for vice chair is Jay House. 7.6 the veterans advisory committee chair. Also per resolution the council shall appoint the chair of this board. Um the recommendation of staff is Benny Guerrero to serve as chair. Item 7.7. Um this I will come back to this item as this is just reading it into the record and is not requiring a vote. Do you want to hold on that mayor and then I'll give a further briefing? >> Uh go ahead and I'll call the vote just on the other items. >> Okay. Um item 7.8. This one is a resolution increasing the membership of the capital improvements advisory committee to eight members and appointing an eighth member. Um, this board was established in 2019 in accordance with state law at that time. When this board was created, it was required that the board consist of 40% membership be comprised of representatives of real estate, development or building industries. Currently, three of the seven committee members, approximately 43% are representative of those memberships. Senate Bill 1883 adopted in this last Texas legislature amended those requirements that at least 50% of the board has to come from the real estate development or building industry. Rather than removing a citizen position, it was recommended to add an additional member um to then make the board now eight members where it would be four and four. So four citizens and then four of the industry position. Um the individual being recommended for that eight position is Matt Vance and he does satisfy the requirement of the real estate developer or builder industry position. Okay. Are there any questions for Miss P? I see none. We will uh without objection we will just have one vote. Is that on 71 through 76? >> You certainly can. >> Okay. Is there any objection? I see none. So, do I have a motion to approve item 71 through 76? Second. Have a motion in a second. This will get us through quicker. Any discuss further discussion on items 71 through 76? I see none. All in favor, let be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. There is none. So, that passes unanimously. Seven does not need a vote. Uh we'll move on to 7.8. I >> I think though that you the city secretary needs to read into the record your appointment. >> Go ahead and read that into the record. >> I hereby read into the record and declare that the mayor's appointment to the Lev Housing Authority Board of Commissioners is Monica Perez. >> Thank you. All right. 7.8. 8. >> Yes, ma'am. Dr. Wilson. >> Mayor, I move to approve item 7.8, which is expanding our capital improvements advisory committee to eight members and appointing Matt Vance to the capital improvements advisory committee as our new eighth member. >> Is there a second? Second, Mr. Harris. Okay. Any discussion? And just based on the citizen comment earlier, we don't have a we have to have a 50% representation now. 50/50. >> That is correct, mayor. >> Okay, just to make that clear. Any further discussion on this item before we take a vote. >> All right. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. 7.8 passes. All right. We'll move on to items 7.9 through 7.11. And without any objection, if I hear none, the council will conduct a consolidated public hearing on these zoning cases. Is there any objection? I hear none. The council's already received uh the staff reports from the planning department and recommendations from the planning and zoning commission. As a reminder, the purpose of the public hearing is to hear from the applicant and members of the public. The council may ask questions of the applicant or staff during the public hearing, but no discussion on the merits will be conducted by the council during the public hearing. So, I'll now call on our director of planning, Kristen Sager, to provide pro provide a brief summary on each zoning case subject to the public hearings. >> Good afternoon, mayor and councel. Item 7.9 is zone case 3525 in district 4. The applicant is AMD Engineering LLC requesting a zone change from office lowdensity residential SF2 and highdensity residential HDR to office and neighborhood commercial. We sent out 54 notifications, receiving three in favor, six in opposition. This property is located south of 122nd Street west of Quaker Avenue. Here's the notification map showing the responses we did receive. Since the written opposition from property owners within the 200 foot notification boundary exceeds 20% of the land area, a supermajority vote of six out of seven is required for the case to be approved. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There is additional residential to the east across Quaker, residential to the west, north, and a few commercial properties along Quaker Avenue. Current zoning is office, SF2, and highdensity residential district. There is additional highdensity residential to the south, office and auto urban commercial to the east, and additional SF2 to the north and west. Future land use plan designates this property for residential lowdensity land uses. Here's some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. Here is a graphic provided by the applicant. The L-shaped property that fronts onto Quaker is what is being requested for the neighborhood commercial zoning. The additional property to the west is office what is being requested. Here's a graphic provided by the applicant showing their proposed buffer yard adjacent to the residential. The future land use map designation is for residential load density. Although the proposed zone change to neighborhood, commercial and office is not fully consistent with this designation. It is in moderate conformance due to the neighborhood commercial being adjacent to existing commercial uses and its frontage on Quaker. The proposed zone change is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and will be appropriate at this location. It is compatible with the surrounding area and will not change the character of the existing development. The pro project is along Quaker Avenue and 124th. Quaker is a principal arterial and 124th is a collector. Staff had no objection to the request. The planning and zoning commission recommended approval by vote of 7 to one, but again a super majority vote is required for it to be approved. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. I see it. Proceed on. Thank you. >> Item 710, zone case 3523 is in district 5. The applicant is Keller Williams Commercial. The request is for a zone change from lowdensity residential SF2 to light industrial. We sent out 18 notifications receiving one in favor, three in opposition. This property is located south of 130th Future Loop 88 west of Chicago Avenue. Again, since the written opposition from the property owners within the 200 foot notification boundary exceeds 20%, super majority of six out of seven votes is required for this request to be approved. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There is a mix of residential and commercial uses with several properties adjacent to this area outside city limits. Current zoning is low density single family SF2. There's just additional SF2 and some industrial to the north and then again properties outside city limits. Here's an expanded view of the zoning in the area. There is additional industrial park, heavy commercial, light industrial uh zonings within the area. Future land use plan designates this property for residential low density. And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. This is a graphic provided by the applicant showing their proposal for office warehouse. The future land use map designation for lowdensity residential is not consistent with the request. However, it is appropriate considering the existing adjacent land uses and zoning in this area. The zone changes in conformance with the zoning ordinance and will be appropriate at this location. It is compatible with the surrounding area and will not change the character of the existing development. 134th is designated as a local street and Chicago is designated as a collector. Staff has no objection to the request. The planning and zoning commission recommended approval by a vote of 5 to three and again a supermajority vote is required for this case to be approved. And I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Item 711, zone case 3058H in district 5. The applicant is Hugo Reed and Associates is a request for a zone change from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial. We sent out 36 notifications receiving zero in favor, 13 in opposition, 11 of which are outside the notification boundary. This property is located north of 50th west of Milwaukee. Here's the map showing the two responses within the notification boundary that we received. Here's an aerial view aerial view of the subject property. There is developed residential to the south and west and vacant land to the north and east. Current zoning is medium density residential. There is neighborhood commercial on two other corners of this intersection and low density SF2 to the south. Future land use plan designates this property for residential lowdensity land uses. And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. Graphic provided by the applicant outline outlining the subject property. The future land use map designation is for lowdensity residential land uses. Although the request to neighborhood commercial is not in conformance with this designation, its frontage along 50th Street, a principal arterial, makes the request appropriate. The zone change is compatible with the zoning ordinance and will be appropriate at the proposed location. It is currently bounded by SF2 zoning to the south, across 50th street and MDR zoning to the north and west. It is adjacent to NC zoning to the east and again fronts on a principal arterial. as staff has no objection to the request. The planning and zoning commission recommended denial of the request by a vote of two to six and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Just uh to make clear just although there was a recommended denial by the PNZ that does not require a super majority from us on this one. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. Only majority. All right. All right. Any other questions? All right. I see none. Okay, I'll now open the public hearing for agenda items 7.9 through 7.11. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of these zoning items, any one of them, if you come forward and say which one you're speaking in favor of, uh, state your name and your address. >> Good afternoon, council. My name is Will Stevens with AMD Engineering, 651568 Street. Uh I'm representing case 7.9. Um just a zone change request at 124th in Quaker. I'm just add a little bit of color to that that that zone change. Um the original plan for that development was um and I may go back to that case. You'll bear with me. So, the original plan was to have a um almost like a gym for um for athletes to come train at in the piece that kind of goes back into the neighborhood. Um that plan has kind of fallen through. So, we've amended that request to have office zoning um where it's currently SF2 and HDR. Um, we felt like based on our conversations with the neighbors, um, one of their big concerns was the hours of operation of, um, commercial zoning. And so, we wanted that back piece to be kind of a garden office where, you know, more 8 to five hours. So, um, I'd be happy to answer any other questions if you have them, >> Mr. Rose. So, they don't have really any plans yet for this? >> Not anymore. No, sir. The plan is to, as you can see, there's already heavy commercial um that they do own. >> So, the plan is to wrap that with neighborhood commercial, kind of a less zoning, and then the back have kind of a a garden office. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Collins. >> Thank you. Uh will does your owner control any of the other properties adjacent the uh auto urban commercial that appears to be directly to the east or uh the HDR to the south? >> Yes, sir. They do control the heavy commercial. I believe to the south is the the spa, the ocean massage and spa the south. >> Okay. I don't believe that they they own that though. But the um the the red area on our map, Auto Urban uh is controlled by the same owner. >> Yes, sir. Okay. >> Correct. Thank you. Any further questions? All right. Thank you all. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of any of these items 7.9 through 7.11? Thank you so much. >> Good afternoon. I'm Terry Hullman with Hugo Reed and Associates. We're at 1601 Avenue in. I'm speaking on behalf of item 711 for Red Spike Development. Um we we were we received a negative vote at Planning and Zoning Commission. So, it's up to me to demonstrate to you why I believe they missed the mark on that vote. And so, I'll take a little more of your time than than maybe you're used to, but allow me to proceed. Um, at Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, it was a fairly short discussion. It was what I believed was a routine request. Uh once the public hearing was closed, the uh commissioners deliberated for a bit uh and what they seem to be concerned I think about traffic as much as anything else, which customarily is not the the primary concern with respect to zoning. We're we're focused on land use as you as you well know. Um so we did a little bit of homework on this and I just want to point out a few things. This location is on a an arterial. It is a major thorough affair at the at the intersection of a major thorough affair and a collector. The collector is Pontiac Avenue. Um it is fully constructed. Currently 50th Street is a three-way I'm sorry three-lane um road that will do nothing but expand as the years go by. So we believe it's a great candidate location for commercial. We have commercial. We have neighborhood commercial at two of the other corners. Our goal was to simply round this out and finish out the intersection with neighborhood commercial. And this, by the way, is called for in the comp plan. Um, it's easily forgotten that the the the colors on the map on the comp plan always make it look like it's meant to be residential. But if you read the the langu the text in that section of the comp plan, and it says, "By the way, this whole paragraph is the future land use map." it does make textual accommodations for retail along these midmile locations. So we it is a candidate location for commercial and uh I believe planning and zoning commission may have lost sight of that. So what we're doing is we're asking for things that have really been done all over town and this is why we believed it was a routine request. This is our request and the the little bit darker purple is the area that we're requesting. You see, it's certainly single family to the south of us. Apartments are all around us and the other two corners are neighborhood commercial. Um, this is down uh 50th Street about a little more than a mile to the west of us. Um, this is neighborhood commercial uh pretty much almost all the way to the midmile point across the street from single family. This is in Escanido Ranch development. Uh, this is uh this is a good example of sort of some staged zoning. This is uh at 146th in Memphis. Um the the most recent one is in the Kelsey Park development to the northeast neighborhood commercial done in 2021. Uh the middle one there uh NC is uh in the Sedona development. The the thing that's good to note here is at the time of that zone case 146 was uh not even a paved road quite yet. So that's a good example of why we do zoning as a precursor to development and we believe that this is our location is is certainly a good candidate for that. Uh this is uh the Red Feather development and Straford Point to the north. Uh a long stretch of neighborhood commercial expanding all the way along the Thoroughfare uh well to the midmile point. Uh 98th and Quincy neighborhood commercial. So this is another thoroughfare collector illustration. Neighborhood commercial on one corner and even AC on the opposite corner. Uh 89th in Milwaukee. A similar situation where we have neighborhood commercial along the midmile stretch. Uh this is along Quaker south of Loop 88. Uh north of the Stratford Point development. Again neighborhood commercial extending all the way down to the half mile point. Uh lastly, um the restaurant location there at 114th in Memphis. Another great example of of why we why we like to develop this way. Uh it's on 114th Street, which is not yet fully paved. It's it's seeing more and more traffic as the years go by, right? Uh Memphis is is fully paved. So, what we're asking for is is is really what's been done elsewhere. Uh we would appreciate your consideration on this. I also have the landowner here uh who can offer his perspective on this this case as well and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions for Mr. Hullman? I have one that 50th Street since the concern was about traffic at that point. Uh is it a threelane? >> 50th is threelane. Yes. >> It goes over the railroad tracks and then proceeds to the west. Right. >> Uh yes. In fact, it's been recently improved to three lane uh even beyond uh Upland all the way out to Al Cove. >> All right. And u remind us all again neighborhood commercial what can be used in the NC >> um >> and what is his >> it primary focus is is small retail strip center um restaurants. It's the tract isn't really big enough to have like a large groceryer or something like that. It's really intended to be strip center and small retail. >> All right. >> And also banks and offices if you so choose. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. You have a question for Kristen. Okay. Kristen, if you might step back up. Mayor Pro. >> Kristen, is this the one? I'm sorry. Clarify for me. um that is going to require the traffic signals >> there. There has been a study done in regards to a traffic signal at this intersection and so I believe it is something that is coming in the future. So is that already budgeted for how how is that working? I >> So currently we pro we budget for two signals a year. Um we have six signals that we have completed studies on and those are actually going to the traffic uh citizens commission next month to see what their recommendation is. So likely you like I said we program two a year so within the next three years. I think that's something you'll see from staff recommendation depending on the traffic commission. So but obviously it's ultimately up to the preview of the council as well if you wanted to prioritize that further. All right. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of either 79, 10, or 11? >> Good afternoon, Jeremy Stein at 10210 Quaker. I'm here to speak on item uh 7.10. Just want to give a little context to this project. Uh this is the area that she was referring to. That's just a pack patchwork of city, county. We have single family, residential, trailers, commercial. So, it's there's just a lot happening. Directly across the street is a 25ft acre self- storage facility that spans the entire block. Um, this this exact tract is a 5acre track that's comprised of um some dilapitated trailer homes and just buildings that are all vacant. Uh, the buyer of this property is intending to raise all of those buildings and redevelop this into a small community of some light industrial and shops, all of those being about 5,000 square feet or less. The intent is for a user to do the majority of their business inside of that small shop and a small business owner. The buyer isn't a developer. He's actually a professional musician and he has a need for a space for his cars in a studio. And he saw this concept in Florida that had these high-end shops that um kind of themed around cars if you're a car guy. And that's his intent here. Also wanted to speak to the setbacks on this property. There is a 100 foot set back from the residential areas plus a 15 foot buffer yard that's going to be included on this. And uh due to the patchwork and the nature of this block, this is really the highest and best use for this property. This property um you know it's hard to believe somebody would pay $350,000 for a track of land to build a home on to be directly across from a massive self storage. Um same with retail. There's not visibility. Office use the same. This would have to be a an office development with multiple office buildings and you know those are selling for north of $300 a square foot now. And so again, you're not going to particularly want to purchase a million dollar office building in these in this area just because of the patchwork of how this has come together and now been formed and just answer any questions you guys have. Any questions? I see none. Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in favor of any of these items? Mr. Pay, >> Mayor Thomas Payne, 15309 FM 1730. I'm here to speak on uh case number 7.11. I'd like to hand this letter out to the council if you don't mind. So, at the time this case uh came before planning and zoning, uh I was not present. Had I been, we probably wouldn't be here today as we are. Uh that night, I had an opportunity to spend an entire night of quality time with my daughter and I don't regret not being at the zone case. Uh but just to clarify a few things. Uh one, I've sold off at one point I controlled all of the land that's on your presentation is green and pink and orange. and those have been sold off uh over time. First the track to the northeast of the intersection Pontiac, then the southeast, then the northwest. Uh those are all have been sold for apartment tracks. As I sold those off, I reserved a relatively conservative amount of commercial land on the corners and in the one case on the south side of 50th at the east end. So we would have the opportunity for a little bit of commercial development uh in that area which is is certainly will be needed. The east of Pontiac those tracks are as they are shown because of constraints part partly and in large part because of of drainage issues. And so uh those tracks are sold to apartment developers. uh but it would be difficult for them if they chose to to turn around and even try to obtain any different zoning to do a uh like a commercial use on that land because of the zoning constraints. And so when I sold the track that's in orange on the northwest side of that intersection, I reserved this track that you see before you today uh as as really the only place to do any kind of significant commercial regular commercial uh development there. That was planned from the early days of Westmont. The uh original phase one development is across the street to the south. It contains an 8 foot uh perimeter wall around the Westmont development. Also a streetscape on the north side or street side of that wall uh before you get to 50th Street. So it was designed for this purpose from the beginning and withheld when I sold the orange apartment tract at the time. The letter I just passed out is from the owners of the Orange apartment tract which is well under development today just telling you that you know at the time that transaction occurred it was known to the parties not to the council at the time but to the parties in the transaction that it was intended to be commercial and they didn't have any objections to it. Uh Mr. Homeman referred to a track down the street that has essentially a half mile of heavy commercial and neighborhood commercial zoning all the way across the front of it. Uh if you look at this uh depiction, you will see that there's far less, maybe not half, but certainly no more than 2/3 as much and maybe even only half uh of the zoning here that will be uh commercially zoned if this case is approved. So, uh, I'm here to answer any questions and would appreciate your approval of this case. >> Any questions? >> I see that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon. I'm Larry Allen. I live at 11603 Udica Avenue. I'm here more speaking on behalf of Friendship School District today. Hi, U. Michelle McCord, Dr. McCord, and David Miller. They requested that I help them reach a settlement with Mr. Payne to negotiate the completion of Pontiac Avenue. I believe at the PNZ meeting on a couple weeks ago, there were some a couple of misstatements that swung that vote and I wanted to clarify those so that you guys have all the facts. The first statement was made was that Pontiac was not finished. That road was completed uh the end of March. Uh Mr. Payne had until June to complete that. He completed it early. The other thing, the other comment that was made was that Mr. Payne had promised the school district a traffic signal at that location. Well, obviously Mr. Payne can't he can't commit to traffic signals. And I confirmed that. I had a lengthy discussion with Dr. McCord last week to confirm all of the facts that I knew. I mean, I go back with friendship a long time. I've watched this project grow when they put the high school out there, the whole thing. But I think there was some misstatements made at that meeting which obviously changed the vote on the P&Z. This is a pretty simple deal in my opinion. I'm a banker. I do these deals all the time around. uh looks like a pretty simple simple situation, but I just wanted to clarify the record today because again I don't think that accurate information was passed on at the PNZ meeting. So with that, I'll answer any questions y'all might have. >> Any questions for Mr. Allen? >> I see none. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of these items? All right. Now, anyone wishing to speak in opposition to 7.9 through 7.11? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? All right, I see none. So, I will uh now close the public hearing at 3:45. All right, we'll take each of these since there's some that require my understanding is 7.9 7.11 require supermajorities. Is that right? >> I think it's 7.9 and 7.10 require supermajority. >> Is that right? 7.9 and 10. I wrote it on the wrong one. >> Se right. >> Okay. All right. So, is there a motion to approve agenda item 7.9? And remember this is a super majority vote. >> Second. >> Have a motion to second. Any discussion? I see none. So all in favor of item seven, let's do this as a recorded vote. Yes. Please cast your vote. All right. That receives the necessary supermajority. So that passes. Thank you. All right. Now we'll move on to 710 which also requires a supermajority vote. Uh is there a motion? >> So move. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I see none. So if we can bring this up for our votes. >> Oh Gordon, did you have a question? Okay, that receives the necessary supermajority vote in favor. So that passes as well. All right. Uh move on to item 7.11. This does not require a supermajority. So, is there a motion to approve 7.11? >> Is there a second? I have a second. Any discussion? >> I'm not seeing my screen here. So, let me There we go. Mayor Pro tip. >> Once again, for Kristen Sager, what was the opposition or were there any was there any opposition from the neighbors? Yes, there were a total of 13 in opposition, 11 of which were outside the notification boundary. Um the I don't know if you can see my screen. The only two inside the boundary um were within the 200 foot boundary out of there were none within the 400t. >> And will you remind me just one more time on that one? What did PNZ recommend? Was it no? >> Correct. PNC recommended denial by a vote of two to six. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I see none. All in favor, let me know by saying I. I. Any post say nay? Hear none. Motion passes. 70. All right, we'll move on to item 7.12. We'll conduct a hearing now regarding a request for annexation from Beatenbo Homes LLC and Starlight Development LLC to annex an area approximately 8.82 acres adjacent to the southwestern city limits of the city of Levuk south of 146th Street and adjacent to and west of Frankfurt Avenue into our corporate city limits. Purpose of the public hearing again is to hear from the applicant, members of the public. We can ask questions, but no discussion on the merits conducted during the public hearing. So, I'll now call on Christian Sager to provide a brief summary of this agenda item subject to the public hearing. >> Thank you, mayor. You said everything I was going to say. This is a request for annexation of 8.2 acres located south of 146 west of Frankfurt. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions for >> I see none. Thank you very much. All right, I'll now open the public hearing on item agenda item 7.12. Is anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this request for annexation? Is anyone here to speak in opposition to this request for annexation? I see none. So, I will close the public hearing at uh 451. Uh so now do we uh I'll entertain a motion to approve item 7.12. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> I see none. All in favor? Let it be known by saying I. I. Any post say nay. >> Nay. >> Is it just the one? Okay. That motion passes six to one. All right. All right. Let's take a break. We'll take a 10-minute break. Record, whatever the proper terminology is for where we are here. Before we get moving on, I want to call on Councilman Rose here. He has a um someone that he wants to um commend or >> uh Yeah. Can Oh, I was just waiting on my mic. Sorry. Uh mayor, I have a couple guests here. If you guys would stand up. I have uh Philip and Alex Bowman. Uh they are part of the Boy Scouts of America troop uh 593. Is that correct? Okay. And uh Alex is here. Um part of his uh his duties is to come to a city council meeting and learn a little bit about local local government and he chose a uh firework of a day. So um we're happy to have you and I just wanted to um recognize you guys so you can get out of here since you've been here for the last three hours. Thank you guys. I think I think this fulfills a requirement for his life badge and he he probably is I thought you'd want to stay for the rest of it. I mean, the exciting part's about ready to get started, but uh okay, whatever. It's what'll really make you want to run for office one of these days. So, uh or not. So, all right. We'll move on now to item 7.13 and uh uh this is a first reading an ordinance on first reading amending the unified development code will first take up these proposed amendments to the UDC that were recommended for approval by the planning and zoning commission and I will call on Micric. Okay, Eric, there you go. Uh to provide a briefing on this Mr. Ino mayor, council, I'm just going to take a moment just recap where we've been with the unified development code. So the UDC was adopted in April of 23 and as part of that discussion and the council at that time and the planning and zoning commission at that time recommended that because this is a you know in essence a you know overhaul of the 50-year-old zoning code where we were working in subdivision regulations really just a significant overhaul that hadn't been done in several decades. They recommended that we take a review, do a review every six months of the UDC. This is the fourth review of that two-year commitment um to review the UDC. I think after these 55 56 amendments that you're looking at today, UDC is in a good spot. It's working. We're seeing a reduction in zone cases, seeing a reduction in variances, which is something you expect to see when you've updated your zoning code. Um what you have before you were two ordinances today based on uh planning and zoning commission's recommendation. There's 55 that the PNZ is recommending in favor of. We can get Chris to run through any of those that you want to run through and there's one that they're recommending that there's a that they recommended denial of. But just keep in mind, you know, we're this is really the last of the that per that two-year commitment. There will be a need to revise it as development changes, as the law changes, as staff identifies issues, as y'all, you know, hear from your constituents or the developers. It's something that it needs to be a living, breathing document. But I just kind of wanted to just let you know that this is really that last of the of the two-year commitment that we made um whenever this was adopted a couple years ago. So with that, Mayor, if you'd like to for Kristen to run through any of the amendments of the 55 that the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of or I'll leave it. >> Does anybody want us to run through any of those? >> I see none. All right. Okay. Um, I will entertain now a motion to approve the recommended amended amendments listed as items one through 56 with the exception of item number 31 which we will take up separately. Is there a motion? So >> move there have a second. >> Have a motion. I have a second. Any further discussion on these amendments? >> I see none. All in favor let me know by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. That post passes unanimously. All right, we'll take up the uh proposed amendment to the UDC that was not recommended for approval by the planning and zoning commission. And again, at this time, I'm going to call on Miss Sager to provide a briefing on it. >> Thank you, mayor. Item 31 is a proposed amendment in regards to section 3903023 in regards to wall signs. This would add a provision which states structures whose primary use as automobile structured parking and have a minimum overall height of 50 ft shall not be limited to 20% of the building facade for wall signs, but instead the wall sign shall not exceed 35% of the area of each facade. The PNZ did recommend denial of this amendment by a unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> There any questions for Miss Sager? Dr. Wilson. >> Miss Sager, the language in this, would it allow 35% signs on like parking garages that are built into like the student housing projects and anything else that's got like highdensity residential, anything like that? Are these just free parking structures? Right. It would not be allowed um on parking garages that are built as part of a a housing development. Those garages are accessory and incidental to the primary use which is the housing. So this would only be allowed for a standalone parking garage. >> Thank you. >> So for instance, the u housing development going up on 15th and university even though it has a parking garage in the middle of it, they could not do this on that. >> That's correct. It is not the primary use. >> All right. And primary use is defined in the UDC. >> Yeah. Uh you know I don't know if there is a explicit de definition but the primary use is what is the primary use of the development. >> I think we all know what primary means but sometimes that's why there are lawyers in this world and uh because not everybody agrees on what that means. But I mean I'm not sure. I I think it is defined in there. >> Well, I'm not sure if there's a it's going to be fact dependent on each particular building, right, and how it's zoned. But once it's probably going to end up being tied to whenever they pull their permits and for their construction as to exactly what the building structure is going to be, it'll be committed at that point in time as to what the primary use is. >> But primary is not necessarily dependent upon how many square feet percentage of the square footage of a percent instance. Let's just take the uh uh what's going up on 15th and Avenue X. Let's say the parking garage was 51% of that. 49% of the square footage was for the apartments. Would that be primary use as parking? The parking is certainly ancillary to the >> apartment use. That's right. And I think I think that's ex >> that's where you probably get into it. >> Yeah. >> If it's ancillary to >> That's right. >> Okay. >> All right. I just don't want there to be confusion later on because lawyers make their living off of that kind of stuff. Me accepted. All right. All right. Any other questions? Mr. Collins. Mayor, I think that, you know, I think if we look back at the zone case or the variance that was issued um several years ago, we see that that variance was issued and and and and there were some stipulations put on it. One of which was that uh signage had to represent users of the building. And uh I'm a I'm a big proponent of a clever workaround. And and I think we're subject to a clever workaround in that the signage that is being that is placed on this particular building today that we're talking about um is not representative of people who actually use that building. And so I'm very fearful um because we have lawyers that we may be subject to another clever workaround in the future if we're not very careful. Um I'm not a fan of this. I'm I'm not in favor of this, but I would move uh today that we accept them um the amendment subject to the following additional conditions. Uh that the these structures be at least 100 feet tall. these structures be located on a freeway and that these structures be in a mixeduse development zone. Those three items as an amendment to uh what's what's in front of us for item 31? >> Do we need the motion and second on the primary motion first or can we take it on the >> No, you can pick up his motion as it is. >> I I just want to make sure we're through of any questions from Miss Sager too before we moved on to this. Any other questions for Miss Sager? I see none. Okay. All right. So, you want to make that as a motion and go through your motion again one more time. >> Okay. So, so item 31 uh that we approve item 31 subject to the following additional conditions. Uh that a building structure be at least 100 ft tall. That a building structure subject to this be on located on a freeway. and that that particular be building be located in a mixeduse zoning classification. >> All right. Is there a second to that motion? >> We have a motion and a second. So now we'll have a discussion on that motion. All right. Is there any discussion on that motion? Dr. Wilson. >> Yeah, I appreciate that, Mr. Collins. I actually like some of the things that you've suggested. I think maybe I would alter a little bit and maybe not include the 100 feet since I don't want to see a 100 foot tall parking garages anywhere maybe in my future. But I do 100% agree that the freeway is an appropriate place for these um since that's where the one that has sparked so much controversy is actually located. And I'm I'm okay with the mixeduse zoning. So I I'm not I just I don't know if I want to say 100 foot parking garages, but I do like the >> Yeah, the other part. >> This building is >> Do you wish to offer an amendment, Dr. Wilson? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I think Oh, sorry. Uh yeah, if uh I would like to amend the emotion that Mr. Collins has set forth and just remove the 100 feet and take that back down to the 50 feet. >> So that can be done either as a friendly amendment if it's accepted by Mr. Collins and if not it's not accepted by Mr. Collins then it has to be in the form of a >> we'll need a second on that motion. Is there a second? I hear no second. So that dies for lack of a second. Um, so one of my questions is would your motion, Mr. Collins limit the the facing of the building that the signs could be on only to that which faces the freeway or could they put that on any uh side of the building including those that do not face the uh freeway but would face a residential area or something like that. I considered that as a in this conversation and a part of that um but my concern about limiting only to the face. Uh that's probably the most dangerous side of the building. That's the side you're looking out your window as you flashed by. Uh those signs on the approach side probably um distract you from driving less than it would be just on the face. So I I chose not to include that. All right, other questions, comments. I guess my my concern is just, you know, originally we had an agreement with them and um that agreement time has passed and there was votes by our planning and zoning not to um renew it. That was understood from the get-go. I I'm fearful of this even though technically it is not maybe for a single user. I'm fearful of it really being uh being that and I don't think that's what our signed ordinances our general ordinances are meant to do to solve a problem that we might have. Uh and I feel like that's what we're trying to do here. Um, so I'm not in favor of the amendment even even though I think it's better than the um the recommendation, but I would not be in favor of that. So any other discussion, Mr. Collins? So for clarity, mayor, I agree with you. I'm not in favor of this change. Um, not knowing how the members of this body might vote, uh, it was my intention to offer the amendment to ensure that at the very least this didn't move into other areas of our city. Again, clever workarounds are great. I don't we hear that it wouldn't be possible to put this sign on one of the student housing projects, but um, this would help ensure that happens. >> Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, mayor. And yeah, I agree with um Mr. Collins's assessment of of this and in raising the uh structure height. Now, I've never been a fan of granting special exceptions and I don't even agree that the variance should have been allowed in the first place, but the reality is the particular signage is there and it's there on a very permanent structure. It's not simply something we can just wish away. And we have to acknowledge the significant investment that that the that that the business made and we don't have any legal obligation to even uh to even consider that. Um but the to allow a a massive structure like this with the zoning board of adjustment in effect was making a long-term decision. Um it's it it's it's just it's only fair to to weigh the impact of reversing course. Now, um, like I said, I did not agree with granting the var variance at the time. I will say the large signs are in an appropriate location, particularly across from the football field, and the community has up to this point enjoyed the content displayed on them. In the end, the sign structures are already up. They've been there for over a decade. This is an appropriate location and the content has been appreciated up to this point and there's no reason to expect that any different going forward. One thing is for sure, whether this council votes to take them leave them up or take them down, however we vote, I think everyone I can speak for everyone saying we're sick and tired of seeing that the dirt they're collecting every spring. So, I I urge urge everyone to vote yes on this. >> Mr. machine. Yeah, I think that it's important to note that the these UDC amendments are not not focused on any specific property or any specific land use, but it's about generally what types of land uses are appropriate and where and when we look at um I think freeways for example, those are an appropriate area to have larger advertising and and um so I think that the these are appropriate visions to the UDC that can be implemented fairly. um on on any structure and any location where it qualifies uh in accordance with Mr. Collins amendment. >> Mayor Pro. >> Thank you, Mayor. No doubt this has been a controversial issue and I've met with many folks. I've received a lot of response and I think this is an example of why we need as a city government that we've got to be transparent and you know even talking with someone on staff today you know it's a seven-year variance that probably should have never been allowed and um you know speaking to another person from the public this was definitely an example of preferential treatment. So, you know, I just even hearing that it was rejected by planning and zoning definitely just makes you uncertain. But I'm glad that Mr. Con Collins has put in the amendment and um I say we call for the vote and if we can display it that would be good. >> Just want to make sure there's no other discussion. I think everybody's weighed in. All right. You want to put it up a recorded vote? So, uh, again, we're voting on Mr. Collins amendment. >> His is the main motion. It is. It is. It is the motion. >> Yeah, it's not an amendment. It is the main motion at this point. All right. So all in favor of the main motion as stated that motion fails 4 to3 so Mr. Wait, you just continue the discussion on that item. Take up another motion or >> Okay. So, we go back to the what is presented to us here. Right. >> Okay. Without the >> You can ask for another motion. Okay. >> So, now I will entertain another motion uh for for approval of item 3.1. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Despite second. We have a motion and a second. All right. Any further discussion, >> Mayor Pim? >> Oh, sorry. >> So, just to just to be clear, this the motion to approve as recommended >> is not recommended by the What is What exactly is your motion, Councilman Rose? No, >> we we are now entertaining a motion to approve item 31, right? >> Well, that's what I'm asking. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And you were your motion was to approve item 31 just to to get it to us to for a vote and we have a second on it. >> All right. Any further discussion, >> Mr. Collins? >> So, yeah, I don't know if there was confusion. Let's let's be clear about what we did just a moment ago. We we had a no vote on the motion in its entirety and that could have ended the deal that we would only allow that would have said 20%. I apologize that would have allowed 35% on buildings that were 100 ft tall on a freeway and in the property mixeduse zone. What we've just taken up now is to allow 35% on any parking garage as is in the um original UDC uh amendment that was voted down by planning and zoning. And so I asked Mr. Rose if that was his intention to um take it back up as it was originally presented and and it may be u but I I ask you that question and the second was on that as well right I'm not sure who you gave the second right who was the second okay was no Braden moved >> David was the second all right so we're in the discussion on that motion now to approve approve 31 with the 50 foot limitation and the 35% um uh coverage. Okay. Now, Mr. Gosh, you >> So, I can make a motion to amend the proposal as it sits before us. Correct. >> That's correct. >> All right. So, um I'll move to amend the item 31 of staff amendments to the UDC relating to wall signs to read as follows. that wall signs on structures whose primary use is auto structured parking that have a minimum overall height of 50 feet and this is the amendment part and with a property line that has frontage on a freeway shall not exceed 35% of the area of each facade of the structure. This motion will add in the freeway requirement uh back for the for the vote >> just as before. >> Sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt. Just as before, if if Mr. Rose wants to take that as a friendly amendment. He can >> take that as a friendly amendment. Okay. So >> So he's taking that as a friendly amendment. So then it becomes the motion as the You don't need a second. >> Okay. Because it's already got a sec. Okay. So the friendly amendment now is it still is the 50-foot height, but you've added back in the freeway frontage part of it and everything else stays the same 35%. Is that correct? Everybody understands that? All right. So with that friendly amendment, we still further discussion. I see none. All right. Let's take the vote. Let's put the uh put it up. Oh, that amendment or that motion, excuse me, fails four to three. So now we are back to 31. Is it ex Do we have to take up 31? No, you >> you don't have to. We're done. >> If there's no motions left, then you can just move on. >> All right. I'm just I'm going to assume there's no motion to it on 31. Is there no motion to approve 31? I hear none. All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, I also have a proposal to amend the UDC and I've handed copies of this to all of our U council people and my motion is to amend section 39.02.004e of the unified development code regarding the high density residential districts as follows. When adjoining or immediately adjacent to an SF1 or SF2 zoning district, the maximum building height for a building shall be 45 ft. For all buildings over 45 ft tall. This there shall be whether they are adjacent to or joining. There shall be a required setback of 20 feet for every part of the building over 45 ft. that any rooftop amenities be screened by a six-foot fence. And the minimum parking space required on a vertical mixeduse building shall be 1.5 spaces per unit. And when utilizing a vertical mixeduse building in HDR, a minimum of 40% of the first floor gross floor area must be dedicated to a commercially nonresident commercial non-residential use. open to the public. I would also move to amend section 39.0205 [Music] point A.2 point capital A of the UDC clarifying that these provisions are only applicable applicable to base mixed use districts. Since this amendment covers could cover everything, we have to limit it to where it does apply. So that's my motion. Do I hear a second? Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All right. Open the discussion on that. Mr. Goshin, >> my first question might be more of a point of order if if this was um included in the notice for the hearing today. It it was there is there's a 39 point that actual section was actually referenced in the actual notice for both the public hearings and for this agenda item. >> But um my understanding is we just got this proposed language today. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And so it hadn't been through the review process of staff and planning and zoning and and subject to other public comment from other stakeholders yet, has it? No, this this is the first time it's coming forward. >> My recommendation would be that that these proposals need a little bit of additional study and I think that they would benefit from going through the through the full review process and and in part because these these requirements are very prescriptive. They're very specific and I and I think it would when we're creating a unified development code that's going to apply to many different properties, we need to carefully study the the potential impact to to each one. Um so I would I would suggest that we include this in the uh next upcoming UDC revision cycle. >> Mr. Rose, I agree with uh council member on that. any further discussion. The point of this uh and and I'm I'm fine with the postponement of it myself, but the point of this is uh to try to tighten up the language uh so that when we do approve a um a zone change that would be in a vertical mixeduse district, we don't have to rely on the developer to make a lot of concessions. Uh fortunately with the one that was on 19th Street, the developer did make a lot of concessions. Uh and actually these track every concession he made and a lot of concern was well if you have a lot of different restrictions in there someone may not choose to build it won't become financially viable. Well he made all those concessions and he is building that building and going to build that building with those concessions in there. So I know it's financially viable to have these restrictions in there. I'm just trying to get ahead of the game because I think most of us are also aware that our legislature has taken away the ability of us to require uh I think they moved the minimum for uh uh property owners uh to dispute this to 60% from 20%. So it's virtually going to be in stop uh impossible to stop a development like this in the future. And so I think it's better for us to tighten up the rules now so anyone wanting that change knows what the rules will be. Uh and I feel like we need to do it quickly uh because the legislature has uh made it impossible for us to otherwise uh limit this. So but if we can have a a quick uh follow up on it, I'm fine with that. So, do you want to make a motion to postpone it? >> Or I guess I can do that myself, right? >> You can withdraw your motion. >> Ask staff to sit there >> and ask staff to run it through the Okay, I will do that. >> All right. All right. Now we'll take up item 7.14, an ordinance amending the roadway impact fees. And I'll call on a city engineer, John Turpin. >> Nope. Eric again to provide a briefing on this item. All right. Mayor, council, over the last couple months, we have John in particular has provided a tremendous amount of information related to the impact fees and the review that's been ongoing for the last seven, eight months. Um, we're happy to go over any of that information. Uh, but today, what you have before you is the consideration first read with the second read schedule for this coming Monday uh to set impact fee rates. Um the ordinance you have before you is based off of the citizens advisory committee um seat committee and it is based on basically keeping the 25% collection and I can pull this up um but based it basing it off of the new rates in the study uh the council received. Uh this particular chart here um the very first column is obviously the service areas. The second column and the third column are related to what we have in place today. So that's the max roadway fee today in that second column. Third column is the collection rate as it sits today. The fourth and fifth columns are the proposed rates in the proposed ordinance based on the CAC recommendation where your max roadway fee is the column number four and column number five is the proposed collection rate retaining that 25% but applying the new rates. And council, you have a tremendous amount of flexibility at this time. You you take this information that you've been given over the past couple months and and you make it your own. and uh Mr. Turpin and I are here to address any questions. Um with that, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Mayor. All right. I'll now entertain a motion to approve item 7.14. I have no motion. All right. Oh, Mr. Collins, do you wish to make a motion? >> I don't know. Appears to be problematic to make a motion. >> Do you have a Do you have a question or do you wish to make >> I have I have a couple of thoughts and comments and and then maybe that leads to a motion. >> Do we Let me just Do we need to have a motion before we have the discussion? >> That's That's normal procedure. Y'all kind of done a little bit of everything, but normal procedure is >> I like normal procedure whenever I can figure out what it is. Can we just have a motion and a second and then get on with the discussion? Is that all right? >> That's fine. >> Okay. You want to make a motion? >> Billy Bob's Rules of Order. >> Billy Bob's Rules of Order. Do you wish to make a motion? >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> Well, I haven't made a motion yet. Oh, >> cuz I want to I want to >> I was I understand a motion to approve item 7.14. You make a different motion? >> Probably. >> Okay. >> Probably. >> That's always interesting Carson. >> Yeah. Go ahead. So I would move that we continue impact fees at the current rate. We can adopt uh the new funding mechanism that was provided to us in our study uh and instruct staff to set the percentages at a rate that raises no new uh adds no new cost to um the fee. That's my motion. As confusing as it is. >> Could I ask I think it might be helpful. >> You certainly can. >> Eric, could you put your graph back up there? Your your columns. >> Okay. So, just so I understand, um, Mr. Collins, your motion would be to with the first column being the roadway service area to keep the collection rate as what it is in the third column. >> I would like to utilize the fee structure that's in column three. That's what came out of our uh new study that we accepted two weeks ago. >> I think that I think the column >> column three >> No, I'm sorry. the rate. Um, >> column three is is what was before the study. Column five, >> the one with real numbers in it. >> So, column four is the study information that came out, the numbers that came out from the recent study. I think Mr. Collins, what you're indicating is that you would like to recommend the council adopt basically the fourth column with the new max fee, but set the collection rate at what it is today based on column >> column two. It's left. >> Okay, that's correct. Very good. Thank you. >> All right. Yeah, it was gonna be a lot of questions here. Okay, we'll take them one at a time. So, >> yes, re Yeah, let's talk about Yeah. What's the >> Okay, so so my my motion is to adopt the impact fee per service unit effective 3126 and apply the collection rate that is effective prior to 3126. So, we would be we would adopt be adopting for area A a service fee of $1,714 and we will maintain our collection rate of $427.50 >> and then to determine the percentage based on what that new ratio. >> We'll leave that alone just that's the collection rate as as >> well don't we have to have a percentage in there? Well, we we've used a percentage, but this is still um based on the units of use more or less. Is that right? >> So, so you should have let me had conversation before we started this, >> but we're having good discussion. So, here here we go. >> So, I I I actually I don't think you actually have to do it. You just can't do anything more than 50%. And I think that's the cap. Y'all first instituted 25%. If you adopt him, you're not doing a 25%. You're doing whatever. >> But we're not required to state a percentage. >> I do not think you're required. You're not required to say an actual percentage. You just can't go above. >> I see a lot of shaking heads. So, okay. The way All right. >> The new fee structure, the old collection. >> All right. So, that is your motion. Do we have a second on that? Do you Let's get a second on it first and we'll have discussion if we can. Do you have a second? Have a second down here. Mr. Harris. Okay. Okay. Discussion. Uh, Dr. Wilson, I know you have a question. >> I think mine's more of a question. I was just going to say, so if we don't have to set a a percentage, can you set a flat rate? Is that in the statute? >> Yes. As long >> like just a flat dollar amount. >> I I believe that you could set a flat dollar amount. I think that option is there. And I it's as long as that flat dollar amount doesn't amount to more than 50% of the actual cost. >> Okay, >> Mr. Masheen, >> Mr. Collins. >> So, back to the conversation. I don't think that we've had in my 16 months of service on the council a question that has caused me more sleepless nights and more more time to consider the overall impact of what this decision might bring. I I think this is a very serious and a very concerning issue for us as a city not only today but as we go forward over the next three to five to 10 years. Everyone who has spoken about this issue to us from from the public has said something that rings true with me. This will never replace a road bond package. It will not. We will always be going back to our friends in the development and construction world to help us pass a road bond package. This will never do that. I also think uh that this is somewhat fair, more fair than others because it is a user fee. Um in my opinion, if you want to build a house and you want to build a commercial building, uh there is a fee because of where you chose to do that. The other aspect of this is that what was done five years ago was just a blanket um in in a percentage that was blanketed over all things. And what I would hope to do as we try to get through this budget process and into late October, early November, be able to come back to staff and take a real hard look at these on an individual basis. I feel like we have facilities that are being built or that are being um added on to or finished out that have no impact on traffic yet they're being charged a fee and we have areas where that are being charged a fee where they are making an impact but we don't we don't differentiate from any of that. Um, I'm very concerned about, and we saw the the um the example of the small coffee shop, and whether it's a coffee shop or a a clothing store or whatever it is, I'm very concerned about how we impact our local business owners. I'm very concerned about how we impact our our local home builders or home buyers, I should say, because we do recognize that these fees are going back to the home buyer. Um, and so, so I want us to be able to come back and look at this in a much more in-depth way to determine whether we can adjust and, and I understand we can adjust these at our discretion, whether we can make adjustments that fit lo better than a blanket 25% or 10% or or whatever. That's my intention as we try to go forward with this. Um, I think we've got some we've got some real concerns about what this money can be used for. I think I understand that I for the most part what what we can do with it. Um, I'm very concerned and I've mentioned this to to some. I'm very concerned the fact that we have a $200 million bond package with no contingency that we're only about halfway finished with and these dollars could be used in the correct service area to extend our capacity to complete a roadway. And so to me that's very important. Uh that bond package, the 24 bond package has a 10% contingency. I'm very comfortable with that. we're going to get past uh that bond package with with the ability to fund completely fund whatever the project is. But as we look at a project that might be bid in 26 out of the original 22 package, if it goes over budget, we as a council are going to have to make a decision. Do we spend uh reserve dollars or do we cancel a project? And the very last thing I think we should do uh with a road bond is cancel a project. Uh I I think it calls into question everything about what we're trying to do as we try to pass a road bond going forward. And so that's that's kind of where I am on this. Um it's it's a very challenging issue. Are are we are we inhibiting growth? Uh some would argue that we are. Um I drive I drove down South Slide yesterday on 114th in the 114th Street area. There's a lot of construction going on right there. Uh so I I don't know but I I think we need to take a deeper look at it but if we zero this out today u I feel like we've you know we've kind of handcuffed ourselves a little bit to that. So I'll I'll stop. Thank you. >> Mayor Bro Tim, >> you confused me a little bit Tim on um I personally think that 50% is just an overreach right now. I don't think it's a good time for something like that. Um, at the same time, I can, you know, I still have some concerns about these impact fees for my district and, you know, based on past road bonds, it's road bonds have not been beneficial to my district. They just haven't and not as much as I would like. So, me personally, I would like to keep them where they're at. I think that that's fair right now, but I'm confused by what you're saying. You're asking for us to increase to 50, but keep it at 25. Explain it a little bit more thoroughly because I'm just a little bit thrown off by what you're saying, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yeah, I apologize. It's it's I should have been better prepared in how to explain my intention. Um I think what I'm what I'm asking us to do is accept the new numbers that were provided by the study but keep the old rate. >> So 25%. >> Well, no, not not a percentage. >> Oh, right. >> Not a percentage. keep the old rate, the old exact number, which if if we had the screen back up, if I recall, that was in in a that was $42,7.50 per per road mile or road unit or >> there it is. So, I think what we we see nearly a doubling of the cost, which is what's in column number two versus column number four. And so we recognize that the cost has doubled to build a road, but we've agreed that we are not going to take uh we're not going to raise that rate above what was existed today. And so in reality that becomes about a 12 a.5% fee, not 25. Um but the reality is those numbers rather than to talk about a percentage. Okay. >> So, I'm I'm I am not advocating any increase in impact fees. I'm advocating that they remain the same without any percentage uh is or or confusion about that and I'm sorry that it was confusing. >> That works for me. I think that is a better explanation than your first one. So, I would agree to that. Thank you, >> Mr. After all the time that we've spent studying impact fees and and giving them a few years to work, this is an appropriate time to to call it a failed experiment and and to put an end to impact fees. One of the most concerning examples that I've seen is how the impact fees are creating such illogical and inconsistent results between otherwise similar land users. You have a coffee shop that's going to face dramatically different impact fees if it allows indoor seating versus not. That flies in the face of logic. were treating very similar land users differently without a real policy purpose behind that. I haven't heard anyone on on the council or or even in public comments articulate why these certain businesses should be treated differently based on of what seemed to me is fairly arbitrary distinctions between the way that they use their land. We've also seen that the impact fees are never going to raise a significant amount of money to contribute to the new construction of roadways. If you look at it, if you look at the total amount of impact fees collected, it's essentially a rounding error at less than less than a percent of the total cost of our roadway projects. So, it's not become a meaningful tool to help projects be completed. What we do see is that the impact fees create a tremendous headwind to growth. A new business that's going to face impact fees that could be half of its first year's projected income cannot afford to open. and and the city is killing the golden goose when we stop a new business from opening or we try to extract payment from a business upfront like that because a business is yes it's benefiting from the infrastructure that's built but it's already in place for the for the business that's using the land. the business is going to go and contribute property tax and sales tax over the lifetime of its business that far exceed anything that we would receive from an impact fee. So there's an incredible harm in preventing even one business from opening. But there's an incredible benefit to allowing many businesses to open and begin contributing money to the city's general fund. And it is the general fund that is most important for the city's financial flexibility. It's the general fund revenue that we use to pay for um police, fire, and most of our infrastructure services. We cannot use impact fees for those essential services. We can't even use impact fees for maintenance of existing roadways. You're putting an incredible cash demand on a business at the time where it is most strapped for cash. We see the same consequence for homeowners where homeowners are paying the price. And it's it's really the impact fees drive up the cost of housing for anyone. Whether you're a renter or an owner, you're going to be paying the impact fee at the end of the day. So, they're they're logical and inconsistent. They don't meet a policy goal of the city council. They have not helped pay for new construction. And there's real harm that's caused by the impact fees. I think really the fact that no one here today has even advocated for raising impact fees um to the amount recommended by the study is is an implicit admission that that we don't love this as a policy and it's not accomplishing a a clear policy goal that's important to this council. So, um, my recommendation is is that we, uh, is that we remove these impact fees and, uh, I'll make a motion when it's when it's timely on that. >> Mr. Rose, >> thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I I can appreciate um, Councilman Collins and uh, Councilman uh, Martinez Garcia's uh, concerns on it and u, but the confusion of it alone kind of goes to show you um, you know, we can go back and look at these and rework and pick and choose and this goes there and that goes, but we've had an entire committee you know look at this and um, there yet they're still a a blanket that that doesn't it's not you can't one size fit all things like this. Look, love's been a city that knows how to grow and up until 2020 um we saw remarkable growth without collecting infect impact fees at all through developer agreements, gateway funds, road bonds, and other tools. And that's proof that our city does attract strong development on its own without stifling growth through fees. U we need to ensure that we're not discouraging future growth by imposing fees that can be too much of a burden to a business especially like um Councilman Glashene said it's it's at their most vulnerable time when you're just when you're just getting off the ground. Um whether whether you're a a wellestablished business or not um so by lowering these fees I think we're sending a clear message that love is open for business just as we were during our periods of strongest growth. So let's not put unnecessary barriers in the way of opportunities. Instead, let's return to what we know works. If we want to keep loving a welcoming place for business and growth, we need to recognize that these impact fees can be a major roadblock. This isn't just about easing a burden on builders or developers. It's about removing an obstacle that can stifle new opportunities. The way to pay for roads is through growth. And I think we know that through our through our history and growth isn't achieved by burdening new businesses with large upfront costs. Instead, we should be encouraging businesses to come in, set up shop, and contribute to the tax base over the long term. By lowering these fees, we're choosing a path that invites growth rather than discouraging it. Let's allow businesses to thrive and in turn build the infrastructure we need through the growth they help create. Now, with that being said, we cannot go decades before passing another road bond. The last road bond passed prior to 2022 was in 2009. That gap is why we are behind on roads, not because we didn't have enough impact fees. So, as from this point forward, however we vote, we must pass road bonds on a fairly consistent basis to keep pace with our growth growth. and our citizens have already proven that they have an appetite for road bonds that are necessary in sensible road projects to support our city's expansion as shown by the last two bonds approved at the ballot box. I do not believe that lowering these fees I I do not believe that if we if we do not if we do not lower these fees, it's going to kill momentum for our road bonds going forward. And road bonds pay for our streets, not impact fees. And I urge the council to u I I I would urge the council to to move these uh move these down to to zero. Thank you, >> Mayor Potim. >> I'd like to ask Eric Raheno to come up, please. Either one of you guys. I want to ask some questions. Um, have other cities removed their impact fees that you are aware of? >> I'm not aware of any. No, ma'am. >> And probably most of the cities across Texas are doing something like this. Is that correct? Or >> a lot of cities do it different. There's some that have impact fees. There's some that require in their ordinance require, you know, a developer builder to build a material. So, we we've seen it across the spectrum. It varies. >> Do you feel that or just based on numbers over the the past few years have impact fees impacted business growth? because it doesn't seem like it is. But will you tell me if you have any numbers that demonstrate that either it's growing or it's not growing? >> You know, we saw a peak uh for single family housing in 21 and 22 or 2021. Um commercial growth has been pretty steady throughout even going back to pre-impact fees, post impact fees, and I presented some of that data at the last meeting. So, it's been consistent consistent growth, >> but commercial has now single family is off right now. Single family is down. We're this year uh you know, we hit our we had our peak years few years ago of 2,300 plus homes two years in a row. This year we're going to end closer to,400 single family homes. I think a lot of that may be tied to interest rates though. But, >> and as far as bond projects, I know we keep talking about bond projects. How are we? I mean, it seems like we still have a lot of bond projects that need to be completed. And I know some folks are pro bond, some are against. Um, it seems that the public has a lot of mixed feelings. they, you know, I even heard someone say that they are um they're a little burnt out on bonds right now because it's not just the city trying to do them, but it's also school districts and and other um jurisdictions. So, I think it's kind of seems like the public is a little bit not really into the bonds, but I guess my question for you too is on um would you say would you recommend a road bond right now at this time? >> You know, we just did the 22 and the 24. I mean, we're in 25. I I mean, it's obviously the council's perview to to choose when to call an election or not. >> How are we doing on on roadbound projects? Are we caught up? Are we >> We're doing great. Good. Mr. Turpin and his team have done a phenomenal job. We're obviously approaching year four now. We're actually getting ready to complete a couple of projects, cut the ribbons on a couple of the projects from the 2022 bond. There's three projects that will be going out to bid later this year with a couple more to follow after, but a couple of the bigger projects are coming and they'll be coming to council before the end of the year. So, uh 24 is off to a very good start as well with Broadway and design of the others. So, uh it's they're making very very good progress along with our design team here in house, our consultants as well as our contractors. So, >> one more thing because I know um the mayor is getting in a hurry over here, but everyone has had their time and I'm going to have mine. $14 million doesn't seem like um a lot of money, but has that been beneficial to the city? I just want to know. I I'm trying to be as objective as I can in my decision. Has it been beneficial to building roads? >> You know, with your impact fees, you've collected 14.3 to date. Right now, we've got 5.1 million that are committed for three projects. And one of those is the Upland Avenue, 66 to 82nd project. A couple of them were developer agreements. One for East 19th, the loop 289 to Kil Avenue, and then the Quaker Avenue from 146 to Woodro. And obviously, you were there's one that was been tabled that was on the agenda today. And again, it's important for me just to emphasize that it's important for us to be objective. I get it from one perspective, it may be um better for them not to have any, but I just don't think that it has been let me fair for all every district in the city. So, I appreciate your time, Mr. >> All right. Um, I'll just say that uh I agree with what Mr. Gosin and Mr. Rose have said u without going over those points again about how road bonds have done a far more than impact fees have been able to do uh that growth over time pays uh the development pays us back uh over the length of the bond and what happens because of the growth that occurs. Um one of the things that I I guess I have a little bit of question about or concern about uh Mr. Collins, as far as your thought that we go back in and try to adjust some of these is I'm I'm awful sure I'm not smart enough to figure out how to adjust those. Uh when you start getting in there trying to fuss with and finagle those numbers, I don't know what I've got as far as knowledge or ability to figure out where that needs to be set on any individual. And when I have that many questions about it, I begin to question the whole process itself. Which leads me to my last point. I've lived in this city now for over 65 years. I live in an area of town uh 25th in Flint. At one point that was a new area in town when it was built. And the roads in that area of town, the arterials, Indiana, 34th Street, they were paid for by the citizens of the city. All the citizens of the city paid for those roads. We're one city. And the the philosophical problem I have with this is we're dividing our city up and saying, well, this city, part of the city, because it's growing, they've got to pay more. If we need the roads that we're all going to be using and driving on, we need to build them. and erode bonds in my mind are the way the best way to do this to achieve that um end result. So I'm not saying that these are wrong, but whenever I have a jump ball and he's trying to kind of figure things out, I always go back to first principles. And we're one city and we need to pay for our roads as a city. And I think bonds are the best way uh to do that for our future. And uh I believe our people will support that when the time comes. And uh so I I'm in favor of moving them back uh removing them going back to zero. So any further comments? Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you, Mayor. So I agree with several of the council members up here that say that impact fees have been probably one of the hardest topics we've had to tackle in the last four years. And to me any and you can call them what they are, but any tax that is that complicated that we cannot all understand and we can't even speak the same language trying to get a motion out because they are that complicated is never the right thing. And I'm not saying that there haven't there hasn't been good things that have happened with the city with impact fees. And we have seen benefit from impact fees with developer agreements. We've had roads that have profited. They have not been built fully out by impact fees, but that they moved across maybe a finish line. So, I'm not going to say that there's not been benefit, but the optics now and the current situation we are in moving forward in our budget, knowing that we dropped from eight or $900 million worth of new growth to four in one year and we are 5 million down on sales tax tells me not only is the Fed rate too high, which we all know, but that we are not being businessfriendly and we have got to be one of the most b business friendly cities out here in West Texas to promote growth away from I35 and all of the big cities and we want to grow the right way and right now I don't think impact fees is the way to do it. I think we need to encourage our small businesses again. We need to encourage big business to come into love that have not done so because they don't want to pay a fee. It's too cost too costly to build currently and I think it's time to start stimulating again. I don't think it's the right move to get rid of them completely off of our ordinance because maybe in the future that might be different but right now in the current situation that we are in financially. I think this would only hinder our business growth in the city and I can never support that because I support our small business. >> Mr. Lasheen Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to amend the amended proposed ordinance to set the maximum roadway impact fee for each service area to $0 and um leave the collection rate as is currently in the ordinance. Let me see if I understand this and I might need Eric or John to come up here, but I think by setting so the maximum roadway impact fee that you have up there that's not what's collected by the city. So you would be setting I did not do that. You'd be setting the maximum roadway impact fee at at zero, but your collection rate would remain the same. So, we still would be collecting. >> Okay. Well, then we'll say we'll set the maximum roadway impact fee at zero. >> Okay. >> And the collection rate to zero. >> You certainly can make that that would make more sense, I would think. But you certainly could make that as your you either one you can make as your motion. I just wanted to make sure because correct me if I'm wrong, the collection rate is what we actually collect as an impact fee. So in my understanding if your if your goal is to set the collection at zero then that's the one that needs to be zero for certain >> and if but you still could say that the maximum impact fee per service. I think that's just based off of the study and that's that's just what you could not go over based on that study. And what I'll say is I think 41020003 um subsection C is a table if I recall and it actually the way that it's laid out in the table is it sets the maximum fee and then it does not calculate the dollar but as I recall the table calculates or establishes a percentage >> collection but to make it clear my my proposal is to set the maximum impact fee for each service area to zero and the collection rate zero. Okay, >> we have a motion. We have a second. Discussion on that uh motion. Mayor Pro Tim. >> I just want to set for the record as a small business owner, I am very pro business. Always have been, always have demonstrated that. But sometimes we have to invest in our city. I mean some we can't just keep believing that we are not pro business because we vote against something. We've got to have a little bit of a balance. And I just wanted to reaffirm that because I don't think it's because of uh the impact fees that we're seeing growth slacking. So just for the record, it's important to let you know that it is not because impact fees that our city is not doing where it should be. And I think we all know that. >> Any further discussion on Mr. Glen's amended motion, >> right? He's he's amending Councilman Collins's motion. >> Yes. >> And setting those two columns at zero. >> Yes. I see no further discussion. So I will call for the vote on Mr. Kasheen's amendment to set the rate at zero and the collection or the percentage at zero and the collection rate at zero. And let's have a recorded vote on this one as well. And this is on Mr. Bashin's amendment here. All right, Mr. Basheen's amendment passes. 423. >> All right, you you'll need to have another vote. >> Yeah. >> So, >> we just need a vote. We don't need another motion, though, right? We just need a vote. >> That's correct. you you have it it's been amended >> and so what's currently on the floor is as amended >> the motion as amended >> it's basically the same thing but it's the two it's the two >> so if you'll put put it up again we're voting now on the motion as amendment as amended and the motion as amended passes four to see if I can get back to my screen here in just a second. All right. So, >> it doesn't need you to do yours now. Or do you need to do yours? Yes. Dr. Wilson. >> So, Mayor, at this time, I'm going to have to move to postpone 6.1.1 to date certain uh 82625 for so we can take a look at it again. >> All right. I have a motion to take up item 6 point or to postpone taking up item 6.11 till our next regularly scheduled city council meeting. Uh, do you have a second? >> Second. >> Do you have a second? Any discussion? >> I hear none. All in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose say nay. >> I hear none. All right. All right. Yeah, we're getting close. And we'll move on to item 7.15, a resolution setting the proposed maximum property tax. And Mr. Atinson, who's no longer with us here, had to step out. He's already provided us pretty much a briefing on this item. Mr. Howton, anything else you want to add to that? >> No, sir. Just basically that we're setting the maximum rate that was proposed last time. And we do have Mr. Joe Himenez here if he has if you guys have any questions. >> All right, questions for uh Joe. M uh Dr. Wilson, you have a question. >> Sorry, that was >> okay. Mr. Collins, you have a question? >> Okay. >> And I also want to mention that this is set in the public hearing for September 2nd also. >> All right. Public hearing September 2nd. What we are doing here today for the No one's watching right at the moment, I don't guess, but they will be watching it later, I suppose. And the news media are here. So just to make it clear what we are doing right now, we have received a budget from our city manager and we are setting a maximum tax rate. A tax rate based on supporting his budget and once we do that, that is the number we cannot go above. We are not setting our tax rate for the upcoming year. We are setting a number that wherever we come out will never exceed that. This is for purposes of transparency and so the public knows uh what is on the table and what we're talking about. But this council is in total control of setting that um amount and it can be that number or anything less than that. So just want people to be clear about what we're doing today. This is something we have to do as a legislature requires us to do as a matter of law. Correct. All right. We're just it's a ministerial action almost. So, uh, I will entertain any other questions for I see none. Oh, Mr. Collins. No question. Will your your lights on? Okay. Every now and then I w I look at this, you know. Uh, so >> keep it on. >> Just leave it on. I will entertain a motion to approve the resolution setting the proposed maximum property tax rate at do I have to announce that property tax rate >> it be this it' be the motion >> yeah is uh >> so it is479365 [Music] >> the maximum tax uh rate would be 047 7 936 >> five >> five. >> Yes, sir. >> You ever memorized that? >> No, I haven't. I don't memorize numbers. Um I I don't even memorize my wife's birthday sometimes. You know, that gets me in trouble. So, >> um All right. So, uh we have a motion for that. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor? Let it be known by say when this is a recorded vote. We have to have a recorded vote by law on this too. So if you'd set that up. Okay. >> I'm looking for one more vote. >> You didn't touch it >> enough. All right. Uh, so that motion passes 621. >> All right. Item 7.16. Um, I think >> I I can do the >> for this one, mayor. So, um, as the council knows, the city of Leach has two lease agreements that are associated with the Overton Hotel. One is a for a that were both passed in September of 2007. One is a parking facilities lease agreement where actually the city leases the parking space for public use. Um the other one is a civic center/convention center uh lease agreement where the city is the actual leor for the convention center that's attached to the Overton Hotel. The Overton Hotel is in the process where they've entered into agreement for purchase um and sale from the 1859 management group to a group that's referred to as Rockbridge. Um, and part of those lease agreements require the city to consent to the assignment of those leases to the purchaser. Um, the resolution that's before you today um, consents to that assignment subject to the city manager and your financial staff confirming that all legal and financial obligations of the current owner 1859 management group have been met. Um, and that's what's before you today. It is staff recommendation that you do approve this resolution. >> All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve item 7.16. >> And a second. >> Second. >> Any discussion? I see none. All in favor, let be saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. That passes seven to nothing. All right. Having exhausted all items on our agenda, this meeting is adjourned. [Music]