[music] I'll now open the regular city council meeting of the love city council for January 13th, 2026. The city council will recess into executive session in accordance with Texas government code 551.071 to consult with and seek the advice of the city's legal council 551.072 to discuss the purchase, exchange or value of real property. [snorts] 551.074 to discuss personnel matters and 551.087 to discuss economic development matters. The city council is now recessing at let's see, do we have a good time here? Oh goodness. >> I'm going to follow my time here at 12:30. >> Right. >> All right. Our council is now reconvening in open session. We'll take up our ceremonial items. Before we do, we always open with invocation and our pledges. Um I got an email the other day from a woman who is a uh lives here in Lev. Uh her name is Nusha Naruzi. She is here uh from she's from Iran but she lives in Labok and uh she wrote to me as a resident of the city but someone deeply worried about the safety of her family and her people in Iran and she says millions of Iranians are protesting against oppression demanding basic human rights and uh they have no way to contact their family and friends. They have no idea if they are safe. Uh at this very moment, people may be getting arrested, injured or killed, and the world cannot see or hear what is happening. The science silence is terrifying. For those of us who are watching from abroad, unable to reach our loved ones, I respectfully ask you as mayor of the city that values human dignity and freedom to please stand with the people of Iran and help raise awareness about this crisis in any way possible. Even acknowledging what is happening and showing solidarity means more than you may realize to families like mine. So as we stand and we pray uh today, let's remember the people in Iran who are struggling uh for their freedom uh when we enjoy so many of those freedoms here. And uh uh so and I believe our pastor may have had something come up today. So as we stand, I've asked our one of our council members uh David Lasheen uh to lead us in our opening prayer. And after that, we'll say our pledges. >> Please join me in praying the Our Father. Our Father who art in heaven, be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory and >> happy [snorts] new year to you all. At this time, if you will join all of us in the pledge of allegiance to our country and to our state. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas. One state under God, one and indivisible. >> Thank you. All right, we will now take up citizen comments. According to our council rules, any citizen wishing to appear in person before a regular meeting of our city council uh regarding any matter that is posted on our agenda for that day shall appear in person before a regular meeting of the city council regarding any matter uh posted and complete a signup form provided at the meeting no later than 2:00. Uh so we have a few people today who have uh signed up to speak to us. I have three people. if you come forward, if you would state your name for [snorts] the record and your address and uh and you'll have three minutes to speak. You'll have a a bell that will ring when you have 30 seconds left and a second bell that will ring when you need to wrap up your comments. And uh I invite Mr. Chris Borne to come forward uh first. Mr. Borne, see I'm just right here at the microphone. Um, my name is Chris Borne. I'm representing the Leic Senior Citizen Softball Association. We are as a a group. I'm the president. I'm coming to ask if there's any means to um maybe grandfather us into the FE previous fee structure that we were involved in. Um, a little background about organ our organization. We are a member of [clears throat] uh previously we're we were all members of the community 50 and above. Uh in the past three years we've changed our criteria. It's every senior citizens 40 and above in this um city and surrounding areas of love. Um we've been involved with the city athletics for 28 years. Um in the current structure that we have we paid everything [snorts] has gone up. The increase has been significant. Our budget operates in about $12,000. Um, in the current conditions of what we would have previously been receiving, it would go up about $5,500. Um, we are in fact a true nonprofit organization. There's nobody that gets paid from us. Um, it is all just members selected and driven through that. a few donations for the people in the SP uh softball community for jerseys such and we just going to see if there was any way that the council would do um allow that at least this year. Um we found this out in December. We'd already had our last um meeting for the year as far as voting what it would take in order to for the next year. This kind of came out of the blue for us. Um Brian Hall's with us. He signed up as well. He's a treasurer. He has actual numbers and I would just be uh interested if that was something that the city council would take into consideration for us. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And next is Mr. Hall. And I believe we have something to pass out to the council members as well. >> [snorts] >> Thank you, Miss B. Uh, Mr. Hall. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Council. [snorts] Uh, my name is Brian Hall. I live in Shallow Water. Actually, used to be uh living in in uh Levik, but I live in Shallow Water now. But I am the secretary and the treasurer of Leic senior softball club here in Leach. Um, as Chris was kind of mentioning, we've been around 28 years in association with the city of Leic athletics program. Um, recently we started a 40 and over. Uh, we solely was a 50 and over league, age 50 and over. Uh, we since started a 40. We're regulated by a national uh, association that allows senior softball to be defined as 40 and over. And so we started that league here in love 2. Uh we are a true nonprofit as Chris mentioned. We have zero people that are paid in our organization. We don't have a director that has a has a salary or any of that stuff. We're solely based on membership and our membership fees that are allowed for us. We were notified late November, early December that our fee structure was going to go up. For the past 28 years, we have only been charged user fees. So each one of our players are required to pay a fee to the city for the use of the facilities. We've never been charged in 28 years light fees and or maintenance fees for the whether whether it's Mackenzie Park or we now play a Burl Huffman complex. Um so those fees were submitted to us after our budget was already set for the current fiscal year and um that increase is going to co approximately cost us about 5500. We we run on a very tight budget. We're usually in the red unless we get donations. So um this is going to be detrimental to our organization. So, we just ask that um as part of the Burl Huffman complex, and I know soccer is a little different with the turf fields, but we just ask that we get considered um as a nonprofit, not for-profit organization, that we have a year to substain and take in what was submitted to us for the 26th season. And even that, I' I've had conversations with some of the people that are in charge of parks and wreck um around collaborating and maybe them taking on our league. We've been solely operated and solely driven. We pay for everything from soup to nuts. That's insurance, equipment, scorekeepers, umpires. None of that falls on the city. The only thing that falls on the city is the things that now are being uh submitted to us for the 26th season. So, we would just ask that the council uh take into consideration and maybe give us a year so that we can collaborate with the city on further direction to keep our league running. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Hall. and uh Roxy Cardanus. Sorry, I'm a little shorter, but um I am with UTSA softball for slow pitch. I'm also speaking on behalf of UTSA fast pitch with Julie Rodriguez that runs multiple events out here. Um, our fees have also gone up that and it wasn't something that we were quite notified on. Um, we were just told back in December, I think November and December that, hey, there's changes. Um, we were paying at approximately 175 per field per day. Now we're at 500 per field per day along with um the maintenance fees, along with the cleanup prep. Um, that doesn't include any of that. And like with our numbers wise, I mean we have continuously grow grown in um especially slow pitch last just December um we brought in 95 teams into luk. We love hasn't had those kind of numbers in probably 10 years. Um and that was with 65 of those teams being from out of love. So we'd like to continue that if we can. It's just with those kind of fees, it just hurts a little more. And then we were also notified just last week that we can no longer run 24-hour events. Anyone with slow pitch just kind of knows that's part of the game. You play all hours of the night. Um which is fine if we have to cut off at midnight with park hours. Um it just hurts as far as now we have to limit the amount of teams we're brought in because we can no longer play overnight. Um there hasn't been any reports of incidents that have happened, anything with injuries, things that have affected that could have possibly said, "Okay, now we need to eliminate that." So I would just like to have that considered too with the fees. >> And Roxy, what is the name of your organization? Is a slow pitch, but what >> Okay. [clears throat] >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I believe that completes all our citizen comments for people who have signed up uh today. So, we'll move on here and we'll take up our agenda item 4.1, the minutes from our uh December 2nd, 2025. Boy, that was a long time ago. Uh regular city council meeting. Um and those were in our packets. Is there a motion to approve item 4.1? >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Uh any uh changes to those minutes? I see none. All in favor let me know by saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. The motion approves uh unanimously. All right. Next we'll take up our consent agenda. Uh uh item five. There's uh not been any request from any council person to pull any items from the consent agenda. So I will um attain uh entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as uh presented. Is there such a motion? >> Is there a second? >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? All in favor? Let me be know by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. The motion is approved unanimously. All right. Moving on now to our regular agenda. Uh we'll start with agenda item 6.1 to consider a resolution authorizing publication and posting of notices of the intention to issue city of Luk, Texas certificates of obligation, general obligation bonds, water and wastewater system revenue bonds. And I'm going to call on uh Mr. Jimenez, our uh chief financial officer to provide a briefing on this matter. Mr. Himenez. Is it? >> Yes. Okay. Good afternoon, mayor and council. Um [clears throat] this agenda item 6.1 is a resolution to authorize the publication and posting of certificates obligations, general obligation bonds and water and race water revenue bonds. Um [clears throat] along with this is a refunding of collable bonds that would provide us interest savings for the duration of those loans. So what we're doing is refinancing some bonds that are callable with lower interest rates. So we'll see some savings that doesn't change the term of the bonds. They're they're callable at 10 years, but we'll have some interest savings on the last 10 years of those bonds. Um again, [clears throat] the projects that are in the uh the debt service listing are all approved in the fiscal year 24 or 2526 adopted capital program. As you can see here, we have some general obligation bonds uh that total about 16.6 million. Uh these were the bonds that were approved in the 22 the November 2022 uh geo authorization. We have some bonds totaling 25.7. Those bonds were approved in the 24 2024 geo obligation bonds. Uh we also have a project of water and wastewater. Our west luck water system expansion which totals 36.4 million. Uh we do have one issuance of cos which is our upland avenue 82nd street to 98th street project. Uh that's cost estimate at $12.5 million. So um today I have with me Mr. Matt Bose from RBC Capital. He's going to kind of get into the weeds of and give us a market update and what we can expect those interest rates could possibly be by the time we get to the sale of the bonds. We uh intend to go to market with these bonds in mid to late March. Um but again, [clears throat] this is just setting the publication of notice for the issuance of these bonds. These have to be in the newspaper once every week for five weeks. So that's what the authorization of this resolution is doing for us today. So if y'all have any further questions, I'll turn it over to Mr. BS. >> All right. [cough] >> Thank you, Mr. Jimenez. Mr. Mayor, Council, good afternoon. Happy New Year. It's good to see you all. I have a presentation I want to go through and it will uh pick up uh precisely where Mr. Jimenez left off. Um, there is a lot going on here and I've tried to lay this out in this presentation in a way that's hopefully easily understandable, but I'm happy to answer questions if we get too far off into the weeds. There we go. Okay. So, I always like to start off with just uh a little bit on catching you up with our market, the US municipal bond market, to give you a sense of where things stand today. It often times can get muddled up with other markets that you may be tracking in your news source. So, I'd like to isolate this one. All that to say that I'll start off with a little bit about just the general economy and and you probably are aware of this, but the Fed has made what we think will be their last move for a while. They've taken a wait andsee approach, which means that uh Mr. uh the chairman pal is going to continue to analyze the data, probably argue with the president a little bit about over what the data is really telling us and whether or not rates should be changed. And so, we'll watch that closely. The point is that we don't expect there to be anything that's going to happen uh in the next several months. The Fed will meet again in January this month. Uh and we expect to see them sit tight. The uh unemployment rate has come down. Growth continues to be fairly robust. I think GDP measures across all of 2025 for each quarter were stronger than expected. Uh ever so slightly, but nonetheless stronger than expected. And so we view this economy as a fairly balanced economy right now. Inflation is more in check than it was certainly 5 years ago. Growth is back to being at a robust level and I think we're generally happy with where things stand and how that affects the rate market. We really think the rate market for 2026 will be very stable. Um there's an incredible amount of resiliency that we've seen in the US bond market including all types of levered finance including munis. Uh and really if you look at the equity markets, it's just incredible what they've done in the face of some of these headwinds. So uh we're pretty energized about where things stand economically today. All that to say that we'll continue to watch the market that you operate in. I always refer to this graph and and I think it's important for us to take a look at it today in the lower lefthand corner of page two. Municipal market data is the index that we price off of. It is my Dow Jones and it's taken once a day. Uh it's a read that's given to us and serves as the basis for functionally every amortization that you see uh in our marketplace. And the lower leftand corner shows you a band of of over 20 years where that historical range has been and it's pretty wide understanding that CO was was caught up in this and some other things uh on the downside. It also shows you where things are on an average basis over 20 years. And then in the dark purple line where we stand today. So, we're right in the middle of the 20-year average. Um, we're just above it slightly. Um, you all would price just above each one of those annual marks on that lower axis there with a credit spread of 10 to 20 to 30 basis points. So, you're looking at borrowing money, you know, in the 4% range when it's all fully advertised. And I'm going to go through some numbers in a little bit. This is all my way of saying I feel like we have a really stable environment in which to do the projects that we're about to talk about. I'm happy to talk to you about some of the tactics we use to move around times of volatility. Uh but I feel like the way you're set up and what we've done in the past serves you well. I'll be back um in a couple months to go through the parameters order. We'll get to see this again and I'll give you a fresh set of eyes on where things stand at that point. I'm going to flash forward now and just get right into the plan of finance. Uh, as Mr. Jimenez said, um, you've really got three categories of new money [clears throat] obligations that you're looking at issuing. Certificates of obligation, GEO bonds from both your 22 and 24 elections, and then some water wastewater bonds. So, those are all new money projects. They're highlighted for you. This is the same table that he went through when he was up here at the lectern. uh no changes. The additions to these would come in the form of refinancing some outstanding bonds. If you look on the lower left hand side, the last bullet point, we worked real hard to get a lot on this page, I guess, didn't we? The lower the the last bullet point shows you that we are looking to refinance portions of those three series of obligations. I say portions of because a not all of them are callable and b we analyze everything on a maturity bymaturity basis so that we make sure that each one hits certain metrics before we just go refinance it saves costs that's more financially prudent. There are a number of reasons that we do that. So we will undertake the sale of all three of these categories along with the refinancing of these bonds. And this is how that looks. The first is the certificates of obligation series 2026. This is all for just new money. Uh you can see the project fund there on the left hand side will be funded at 12.5 million and that matches the project that Mr. Jimenez went through in his opening remarks. The all-in true interest cost in the middle of the page is highlighted. This is preliminary subject to change 4.22%. This is amvertised over a 20-year period. And you can see how that's advertised on the right hand side. The next series of obligations are your go bonds. And there's two things going on here. One is you'll do your re you'll do your new money sale. And you can see the project fund deposit of 42.3 million. And again, that matches the first summary page. But we're going to look to refinance some obligations that will fall within your general obligation bond lean for a true interest cost of 3.8. 81%. This too is advertised over a 20-year period. And you can see that on the right hand side to show you what the refunding looks like. I'm going to this next page and I'll I'll point to the upper right hand column, upper right hand portion of the page. This is the refunding savings projected by year. Projected subject to change based on market conditions at the time of the sale. On a gross basis, the city will save right at $1.8 million in interest savings over the life of these obligations should the market hold where they are today. On a present value basis, that's just over 1.5 million. This hits all of the appropriate metrics that we like to see when we recommend these financing. So, at this time, we're going to stick with this structure, but we'll reserve the right to change that up until the date that we price if things should change. I'll point out at the bottom of the page the three sets of obligations that will be refunded under this lean. They they approximate 48 million. They come from your series 2016 bonds issued in CO GO and GEO refunding. And you can see that at the bottom of the page. So that's GEO. And now we go over to your water wastewater lean. And you've got two things going on here as well. The new money portion, the project fund is funded at 36.4 4 million. I keep repeating myself, but again, that matches the summary table that Mr. Jimenez went through. And we are going to refinance a portion of your bonds of approximately 14 million for a true interest cost of 4.04%. The um numbers are amatized over a 20-year period, and I apologize for the funny looking font there. I don't know how that's stacked up that way, but um I can get a cleaner amortization if you'd like to see it. The refunding is highlighted on the next page. And again, this is subject to change. Upper right hand corner. It saves just over $600,000 over the life the remaining life unextended authoriz unextended amorization on this series of bonds. And I will note and I do like to remind you that um years ago when Mr. Atkinson joined the city, uh the council at that time made the decision to reopen a water wastewater lean and to start issuing bonds in there. Prior to that, the city had gotten into a practice of issuing bonds as certificates of obligation that were self-supported by the water wastewater, but this is a cleaner, much easier way to do this. It's viewed very favorably from the rating agencies. They like to see that cordoned off. And so what you'll notice at the bottom of this page is that we have some cos and geos. And to someone in the public, they might say, "Why are you refinancing those bonds into this lean?" The answer is that they were they were issued at that time back in 2016 to fund water wastewater projects. We're just putting them back in their proper place now. So we've been doing that over time and we're getting real close to being done. any new money you issue obviously goes out of that lean so everything's nice and tied in in their spot. I just wanted to point that out. And then finally, Mr. Jimenez spoke to this in terms of timing. Uh obviously here today to help you with questions you might have around passing the notice of intent. Um Jerry Kyle is with me today from Oric Harrington, your bond council. Uh he can talk about some of these other steps in here if needed. But the next time we'll be back is on March the 10th when you'll you will app attempt to approve uh a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds which will occur on or about a week later depending on market conditions. Again, one of the beauties of doing this this way is that you have the flexibility to move things around. So with that, I can answer questions. Jerry can certainly answer questions if you have those for him and I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Mayor. >> All right. Um, one question those those figures you gave us uh for the uh savings on the two uh for refunding refunding is a word we use when you refinance. Most people call it refinancing. We call it refunding. So if people are listening they wonder what what in the world we're talking about here. This is a savings by getting a lower interest rate over time uh or low lower rate on our uh bond issuances. Is this these savings net of any costs of doing the refunding? Great question. These are net of all costs. All estimated. All estimated on the higher side. So, we expect these results to get better just on the cost alone. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions? I see none. All right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> We'll see you in March. >> All right. >> All right. Is there a motion to approve item uh 6.1? So move. >> Is there a second? Have a motion. Second. Any further discussion on this matter? >> All right. I see none. Uh so all in favor let me know by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. >> I hear none. So that motion passes unanimously. [clears throat] All right. I don't second here. Here we go. Council [snorts] will now take up item 6.2 two to consider appointments uh to the American Windmill Museum uh board of directors, our animal services advisory board of dire uh board, our board of health capital improvements advisory committee, central business [snorts] district tax increment refinancing re uh financing reinvestment zone board of directors, civic love incorporated board of directors, community development and services board, urban renewal agency board of commissioners, cultural art grants review standing subcommittee, love housing finance Corporation Board of Directors, the Libraries Board, Love Business Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors, the North Overton Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors, [snorts] the North Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zoning Board of Directors, the Public Transit Advisory Board, uh, Urban Design and Historic Preservation Commission, Veterans Advisory Committee, and the Zoning Board of Adjustments. All right. We Okay, m Mr. Mayor, I think possibly we were going to take one, right? That's I read that and I thought we're going to take that one. >> Yes. >> Ask council to consider all except North Park Tax Increment Financ. I think we're taking that one out. Okay. So, this is going to be all except for the North Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors because Mr. Gusheen will recuse himself for that one. So, it's everything but what I just read off in that long list. All right. Uh, so I'm going to call on Miss P to give us a briefing on this. >> Thank you, mayor. I will run through these boards and then I will be open for any questions. Um, for the American Windmill Museum board of directors, the recommendation is Tilman Hurt to replace Raquel Gonzalez. on the animal services advisory board in a citizen position. Henry Tango to replace Aaron Chabiara on the board of health to replace Brandon Faulen. Dr. Duke Apaya on the capital improvements advisory committee to replace Thomas Payne in a developer real estate builder position. Clark Lambert on the central business district tax increment financing reinvestment zone board of directors. the reappointment of Robert Taylor, Brett McDall, and Gabe Vella for Civic Love, Inc. board of directors, Daryl Holland to replace Emily Wilkinson for the Community Development and Services Board/ urban renewal agency board of commissioners. The reappoint of Jay Warick and Amy George to replace Leo Flores in a citizen and real property owner position. Maria Gomez for the Cultural Arts Grants Review Standing Subcommittee. The reappointment of Paula January, the Lev Housing Finance Corporation Board of Directors, the appointment of Tim Green to replace Carl Russell in a builder position, and Brian Albar to replace Tom Coocher in a mortgage banking position. For the libraries board, the reappointment of Patricia Maloney, Jan RmIrez, and Derek Raybon. For the Love Business Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors, the reappointment of Christopher Hook, Tony Whitehead, and Dr. Kathy Rolo. for the North Overton tax increment financing reinvestment zone board of directors. The reappointment of Timothy Pridmore for the public transit advisory board. Ronald Ator to replace Pearl Sosa for the urban design and historic preservation commission. The reappoint of Bayonetta Jordan and Randy Henson for the Archaeology Paleontologist position. Sally Shelton to replace Tamara Walter. um in a citizen position to replace David Choa, Paty Jackson. For the Veterans Advisory Committee, Fabian Martinez to replace Norman Bearden. And for the zoning board of adjustments to reappoint Shannon Spencer and Dana McFersonson, and to promote Tracy Thomasson from an alternate position to a full member position to replace Joe Fee Jr. and then to replace Raphael Gutierrez, Daniel Craig, Tracy Thomasson, all three in alternate positions. Mike Kerr, Breton Verale, and Ian Cole Watts. I'd be pleased to take any questions. >> Are there any questions for Miss Pods? >> I see none. All right. Um, I do have a motion to accept these uh nominations or appointments to these various boards and commissions. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? I see none. All in favor, let me be known by saying I. I. Any oppose? Say nay. I hear none. So that motion passes unanimously. We will now take up the North Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors. Mr. Glazine will note for the record is recusing himself on this vote. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, with that, we have three individuals up for reappoint. Uh, Kevin Glusheen, David Wilkerson, and Randy Allen. All three are being recommended for reappoint. and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions from Miss P? I see none. All right. Thank you. Uh do I have a a motion to approve uh the appointment of the uh North Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone board of directors of these uh named persons? So move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> All right. I see none. All in favor let me know by saying I. I. Any oppos say no? Nay. I hear none. All right. Passes unanimously. All right. Uh we'll take up item 6.3. Mr. Goshim can rejoin us. This is conduct a public hearing regarding the proposal by the Le Housing Finance Corporation to issue one or more series of taxexempt multif family housing revenue bonds in the amount not to exceed $22 million for the benefit of 110258 street apartments LP in connection with the acquisition rehabilitation and equiping of approximately 152 multif family rental housing units located at 110258 street in Lach known as the Ella Apartments. I'm going to now call on Mr. Amen to come forward and give us a a brief summary on this item. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, as you mentioned, this is just the public hearing for the Love House Finance Corporation to uh issue tax exemp bonds in the amount of 2, not to exceed of 22 million for the LL Apartments located at 11:02 Street. Uh, just want to make sure that you understand that these bonds will stand alone. The city has no obligation on this debt, nor is it in our debt portfolio. This is just authorization for public housing finance corporation to issue these tax exemp bonds. >> All right. Uh that's always nice to hear that when you hear a number 22 million and all we have to do is we have to approve it though. >> Correct. Correct. The the the grant or uh relies on our approval uh for it to go through but the money comes from uh the federal government. >> That is correct. So, >> all right. And I I believe this group of housing has been up before us before, but that proposal did not go forward. So, this is a totally different one than we've heard before. Is that correct? >> Correct. We did have one in the July time frame and that one did get approved, but that was a whole separate housing uh area. >> Okay. For some reason, I seem to think it was the Ella Apartments as well. It was not. Okay. All right. Well, I I think we'd all love to see something happen there. So, uh, are there any questions for Mr. Jimenez? >> Are there any representatives from >> I believe yes, we have Sher Flynn and representing the Love Housing Finance Corporation. >> All right. >> Sorry, I should have mentioned that she was here in case there were any questions. >> Do you have some questions? >> No, no questions. Just wanted to >> just We just want to make sure someone is here. All right. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Mendes? >> All right. I'll now open the public hearing for uh agenda item 6.3. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of uh this agenda item? Anyone here wishing to speak in opposition to it? I see none. So I will close the public hearing at 2:45. All right. We'll now take up an this agenda item 6.4 report to consider a resolution approving the issuance of bonds that were the subject of this public hearing. Uh I don't think we need another staff briefing on this. We'll forego that unless anyone has any further questions. I see none. All right. Is there a motion to approve item 6.4? >> So move. >> Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor? Let it be known by saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. Uh the motion to approve uh passes unanimously. [clears throat] Okay, we'll now take up item 6.5 and conduct a public hearing for zone K 788-B. This is a request by R2M Engineering LLC for Lok Turf LLC for a zone change from lowdensity single family district SF2 to residential estates district at 421 and 501 North Ivory Avenue and 702 and 802 East Erskin Street. A reminder uh the purpose of a public hearing is to hear from the applicant, members of the public. The council may ask questions of the applicant or staff during this public hearing, but no discussion on the merits will be held in uh during the public hearing. So, Miss Sager, I believe you have a briefing for us on this zoning case. >> Good afternoon, mayor and councel. Zone case 788B is located in district 2. The applicant is R2M engineering for Leic Turf LLC. Request for zone change from lowdensity single family residential SF2 to residential estates re. We sent out 166 notifications, receiving one in favor and one in opposition from outside the 400 ft notification boundary. This property is located south of Erskin Street, west of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Here's the response map. The one in favor within the notification boundary is near the southern portion of the property. It's a little difficult to see there. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. The property is currently being used as a turf farm. There are uh two schools to the east of the property, Estacado High School and Talkingington. And there is other residential property with a golf course to the west. Current zoning is low density single family SF2. There is additional SF2 zoning along with highdensity residential zoning bordering the property. Future land use plan designates the property for residential lowdensity land uses. And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. The future land use map designation for lowdensity residential is consistent with the request for the residential estate zoning. It is compatible with the zoning ordinance and suitable for the zone for the uses allowed within this district. The property is located on North Ivory Avenue and East Erskin, both of which are local streets. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Uh Mr. Harris, >> yes. What are the intentions >> for this property? >> Yeah, they can they intend to continue using it as a turf farm. Um the whole reason this came about is because they came into our office to get a permit to build a barn and a barn would be an accessory use in the SF2 zoning. and without a primary dwelling, they would not be able to build it. So, this zoning will not only bring their current use into compliance, they'll be able to build the necessary barn structure that they need for the their equipment. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> But it would also allow the property to be divided into state properties for residential use at some future point as well if it still allows residential use. Mhm. >> Okay. Are any other questions? I see none. Thank you very much. >> All right. I'll now open a public hearing on item 6.5. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this zoning case? Is there anyone here wishing to speak in opposition to this zoning case? I see none. So, I'll close this public hearing at 2:50. Uh, is [snorts] there a motion to approve agenda item 6.5? >> Is there a second? Second. >> A motion and a second. Any discussion? I [snorts] see none. All in favor, let there be no saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Now we'll take up item 6.6 uh an ordinance u amending ordinance number 2025.0112 0112 to [clears throat] eliminate the increase in fees charged for the use of the Burl Huffman turf fields and adopting as the appropriate fee the same fees charged in fiscal year 2024 to 2025. Um and I'll provide the briefing on this matter and I think uh there was some backup in your material as well. Uh I think we all recall and and the citizens probably will recall that we did a study and Mr. Rose and Mr. Collins did a really good job of looking at uh our facility use and uh what was charged around our state for similar uh facilities and trying to bring our fee structure in line with that um and to provide within that fee structure the opportunity to begin to build up um a fund that we could use in our uh Tom Martin and Burl Huffman uh areas to uh provide new turf and new uh facilities and maintenance to to maintain those uh uh properties in better condition. I think the board voted I mean the uh city council voted unanimously for that thought it was a great idea. Um along with that there was a new fee structure imposed at that time uh that went in as part of our uh budget as uh some of the people mentioned today. Uh but also other people have contacted I think several members of the council and me as well. Um they had already set their fee structure for the year uh for their group uh based on the uh fee structure we had in place. uh and when you have uh you know uh when it's just one person maybe you can uh work that into your budget but when you're an organization and you've set your fee structure for hundreds of participants uh that can add up pretty quickly when you haven't calculated in a I think in this case it was for the soccer fields which we're uh talking about today a 75% increase uh in that fee year-over-year which is a pretty steep increase in in a fee structure without giving uh the citizens time to adjust uh to that particularly groups that use these fields. I don't think that takes away anything from the fact that we've recognized we need to increase that structure. We need to improve that structure because uh the long-term maintenance of these fields is very um important to us uh here in the city. But having heard those concerns as well as some of the concerns today, um, uh, it seemed to me that this is another one of those instances where maybe we, uh, we have adopted a good idea without necessarily, uh, considering how it might impact some people in a particular way. And, and once we hear from those people how it's impacted them, it's uh, certainly appropriate for us to uh, reconsider that. And I thought it was appropriate at this time to reconsider it. Um, I think the ordinance we have uh before us today though is just for the Burl Huffman turf fields and it doesn't apply to the Tom Martin uh fields which were also discussed today. Uh, but the ordinance before us would at least roll those fees back from the $75 U fee to the $40 fee uh that was in place um with the full intention that we would keep those fees in place uh for next year. But this would give people an opportunity uh enough lead time to adjust >> [clears throat] >> um and plan for that increase as it comes forward. So that was uh my purpose behind that. I think we all want to make sure that we're taking care of our fields, but at the same time we want to take care of our fields. We also have to consider the impact on the people who use those fields. So u that's the purpose of my uh proposal for this uh which would roll back the fee for uh the uh use of the soccer fields. I think the uh cost is going to be an immediate cost of about a little bit less than $10,000 to refund what we've already uh charged uh the various uh uh soccer groups that use those fields. Uh I think the total impact for the uh uh uh to the uh fund for the year would be $52,000. Uh so that doesn't come anywhere close to being the cost of replacement. I don't believe we have um any intention to replace those fields this year. It just would set back a little bit uh our opportunity to start building up that fund uh till next year. So that's the purpose behind that and that's why I brought that forward today and I open it up for any uh questions. Mr. Go, you still have a question. You move it up there for a minute. You okay? All right. All right. I see no no questions here. Oh, Mayor Pro, >> not so much a question, more of a comment. And um we have [snorts] to take care of those fills. We have to be proactive, but I think that we didn't think about the fiscal year of this group. We need to make a commitment in our budget. It has to be done. Um, every time we make cuts, we always cut from parks and recreation, which is one of the most highly used departments. I mean, they're all important, but people like quality of life, and I think that it needs to be a commitment that we make in the future. The other part is that you heard from folks from different segments of the sports in our community, but I just spoke with someone from softball and million I mean they're Midland is bringing in so much money because of the tournaments that they're taking over there and at some point we too are going to or we need to start really looking at that and uh if we don't have quality fills and we make that commitment as needed. And you know, I it for me it was really tough to say, you know, if we do this for one, we have to do for all. But I think just in light of what we even heard today, it's important that we take that into consideration and we make plans for the budget for for the next year because I think we've got to make a commitment. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of our our groups, our athletic groups were prepared for this. >> Mr. Mr. Collins, [snorts] thank you, Mayor. [clears throat] Point out a couple of things. First of all, to our our guest here today from the softball association, by rule and law, we can't address uh your concerns that you brought forward. We can't make a motion or or try to make changes to your fee structure today. So, I want you to understand that we can't really speak to you guys about this because it's not a part of our agenda. So, when when you're not recognized, please understand it's not because we don't want to talk to you, it's because we cannot. Um, in in particular to the fees that you guys are being charged. Um, a little background as we talk about uh Burl Huffman in particular and what we're about to do uh at at Tom Martin. In 20 2019, Market Labok uh contributed $9 million of economic development money to the uh Burough Huffman complex. And as cities are prone to do, we have used one-time money to make significant improvements to a facility and and this facility became state-of-the-art. It became one of the largest soccer complexes in the state of Texas. Uh but what we don't do what so often we do not do is we do not provide for the ongoing maintenance. Years 1 through 5, years 1 through 7 maintenance is not necessary. But by year 7 8 10 12 maintenance becomes very necessary and there's no funds to do that with and so we have to come back and find another trunch of one-time money if we expect to maintain those facilities. And what we're talking about is our turf fields in particular. Um these turf fields have a life expectancy between 8 and 12 years. Uh those turf fields the life expectancy does not change whether they're used or not. They are damaged by UV radiation. And and that's the reason that those fields deteriorate for the most part. They can be overused, of course. They do have to have maintenance, but the primary reason that those fields have to be replaced is because they deteriorate in the sun. Today we have set aside no dollars for that replacement and we are 5 years into the usage of of those fields. We are 5 years away from needing approximately a million dollars to replace them. Uh the changes that we have made in in this budget cycle um is woefully inadequate as it stands today. If we have a $53,000 impact, um, we're $750,000 short in 5 years. And so we are going to be faced with an issue. And and Mayor Pro Tim pointed out something very, very important. The city of Midland is enjoying tremendous usage, tremendous tourism into their community because they have great facilities. We too must have great facilities. And I feel like these changes are appropriate. It's unfortunate that they caught folks off guard. It's unfortunate that um they weren't budgeted. You know, I'll be the first to say that the public matadors are a great asset to our community. Uh some of their ownership group um I refer to as friends. I think it's very important that we help them to succeed in our community, but it is also very important that we prepare for the future uh with all of these facilities and maintain these fees in order for us to uh continue to have the great infrastructure that allows our citizens and our visitors to enjoy uh their trip to Love and encourage them to come back. U due to those things, I cannot support this ordinance. Thank you. Mr. Rose, thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, I think on uh fiscal timing of different organizations and things, I mean, if if it's if a better time is good for one organization, it's going to be um a bad time for another organization in terms of physical timing. I mean, we we have to do it at some point. Several years ago, um um another council tried to increase these fees and there was such push back that um we did what we're attempting to do now and rolled them back. Um and it never got brought back up again until now. Um so it just puts us further down the road into uh having money set aside to keep these fields up. Um, and it it it just it's kind of an is it is what it is. Um, for me, we've we've got to keep the fields up, and keeping the fields up uh costs money. When we don't have any money to replace a turf field with a bunch of holes in it, then we won't be having any sort of uh softball or uh soccer association. So, um there's never a good time to to raise fees to pull more money out of your pocket. Um, and it just has to be done at some at some time. So, and that I can't uh support this ordinance or support the uh proposed ordinance, >> Mr. [clears throat] Thank you. I think there there are three principles that I've made my decision on based off of this. And the first is that we as the city should maintain and plan to replace all of the the facilities that we have. And we have lessons in the in the near past about the consequences of deferring maintenance and non-building and and maintenance. And it's it's still a sore subject for many of us like the coliseum for example. So it's very important that we that we set aside these funds to maintain and schedule the replacement of of our facilities. The second question of who should pay for these the the principle is that the person who uses the service or the facility should contribute to the cost of maintaining and replacing the facility. The alternative if we don't have fees like this to support the cost of of the facility is that it's going to be paid by higher property taxes ultimately because we can't control the amount of sales tax that comes in. It will lead to a property tax increase if we lower these fees. >> [clears throat] >> So then the third principle of how much should be paid, the fees should match the cost of using and replacing the facility. Uh and as I think it may have been Councilman Collins mentioned, these fees are already below what our scheduled maintenance and replacement costs or needs. So this is really putting us more on trajectory to save towards a down payment than it is to really meet our complete obligation to operate and and maintain these facilities. And just as a as a point of policy consistency and trans transparency, we set these fees in the budget process and and that's the appropriate time to for us as a city to to review and evaluate those. And I have I'm concerned that if we make an exception for one facility or one use that it's going to open up the floodgates for requests for reimbursement. And and so as a as a matter of transparency and consistency, we need to keep the fees scheduled as they are to to try to closely match the cost of maintaining and replacing the facility. >> Dr. Wilson, you have it. >> Yeah, I took my light off because uh Councilman Glashene perfectly summarized exactly what I was going to say. you know, in my four years of doing this already, one of the things I think gets posted the most, we hear the most is um why are you going to commit to a new project if you haven't maintained what we already have? And so, and I think this highlights perfectly how councils get put in a position when we hear people come with stories of, oh, we didn't budget and and then we roll back things that are the right decision. And yes, I understand it. It impacts finances for clubs and other organizations, but this is how the city must maintain what we have. And just like Councilman Glashin said, we know very much so, it is publicized in the news currently that um our current governor is looking at how we cap local governments on property taxes and how we spend money here and feebased services. Um how you use services within our city is the right way to maintain something. So, just knowing what's coming and things that have happened in Levik's past and us not maintaining things like the coliseum. Um, you know, hindsight's always 2020, but now is the [clears throat] time to fix that and change how we maintain what we do have. And so, with that, I cannot support the current ordinance. I think the fees are the right way to go to continue to support what we have to make sure has great facilities to use in the future. >> All right. I um I agree with all your three points, uh, Mr. Kasheen. Um, but there's a fourth point that was left out of them. The fourth point is adequate notice uh when you raise fees and I think it's incumbent on us uh when we take these uh steps and I think we're we're all in agreement with the fee structure and it needs to be made. Um what we didn't consider and what I'm asking us to consider today is that we did not give adequate notice to the users of these facilities who are impacted by those fees. Um now they will have notice that the fees are going up. they can adjust their um uh fees for their uh membership uh in a timely uh manner. But I don't think we can ignore that for good government purposes and just say well we just raised the fees uh without adequate notice. So uh that's what I think u I'm trying to uh address here not any of your other three points. I agree with them all. So, um, I'll be in favor of this, uh, Mayor Pat. >> And just for clarification, all 501c3s are on the same fiscal year, so you don't have clubs all coming in at a different time. So, I personally am not saying that, you know, we're going to have to have fees in place, but I think you are right, mayor, in that adequate notice is very important. And um we just need to plan better. I again I'm not saying to do away with the fees. They're necessary in order for us to continue. We I just feel like at this time we do need to probably postpone these fees because of lack of notice to these organizations. And it's really tough for me to say that, but you know, being a nonprofit and I and I talked with several folks, we kind of put them on the spot. They weren't prepared for this. >> Mr. Harris. >> Yes. Just like Mayor Pro Tim and you, Mayor. Um, I'm in agreement with you as far as the postponement, you [snorts] know, and I'm in agreement with everyone else on the council. I mean, things do cost money and it needs to be upkept, but just putting it there. Oh, and one other question I have [snorts] Will we have to come back and vote on this again if it was to pass or not pass or whichever way it goes? Is this going to be documented at September 26th? This price goes into effect for the uh facilities. >> It Yeah. So this this is an ordinance amendment and so the ordinance amendment will take two readings. So this would be your this passed today and it would come up on your next council meeting for a second reading. And the way that the ordinance reads is that as the effective date of the ordinance, which would be then um there's no penalties associated with it. There's publication, but um it would be effective as soon as the ordinance is effective at that point in time. And that's when the new that's when you the fees would be rolled back. And then the ordinance also calls for a refunding of any fees collected up to that point in time back to anybody who's paid the higher fee. That's how it's drafted right now. >> No, I I I still don't understand as far as when would it just say when the fees >> the councilman I may be able to to speak to that. The question is when would it go back to that new fee, >> right? It would be during your budget process again in August and September and go into effect in October. >> Okay. >> In other words, we'd have to propose this fee increase again because we're rolling it back totally, not just for the remainder of >> correct. You're rolling it back. Your fees are established in that budget ordinance each year. So, this would be just like the discussion you had this past August and September. >> Thank you. the fees would be set back at the rate uh this particular fee would be set back um if the council votes on it to set it back to the rate uh that was voted on earlier this year. >> It would it would go back to the rate really from about 2022. >> It hadn't been changed in the meantime. It was only changed effective this October. >> Yeah. No, what I was saying is when we have the vote again in September, >> correct? That's when we would reset it to the uh 80 $75 80 whatever. >> I believe it was 70 for the higher higher field and >> uh 50 for the lower. >> All right. Okay. And I I guess I would also point out that you know these these fees that we're collecting and the increase in the fees is not going to pay for the work that we have to do to maintain them. That a lot of that money is going to have to come from other sources anyway. And there are other sources uh for it. This was just to give us another bucket of money to use to maintain that. Uh but I think we were all in a unanimous agreement that we do need to do this. Uh it was a good idea and I'm not casting any uh dispersion on the idea. I think it's a great idea. I just think we failed to consider uh the lack of notice to the people who use the fields. So uh any other questions? Any other comments? All right. With that, uh is there a motion um to approve uh ordinance uh or item 6.6? So move. >> Is there a second? Have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? So, all in favor of item 6.6, please let it uh be known by Let's do this so that I can see the vote on it cuz I think there's going to be a a split vote. So, if you'll bring that up for everybody to vote. If you're approve it, vote yes. If you uh disapprove, vote no. All right. So that amendment fails uh four to three on its first reading. All right. All right. Having exhausted all the items on the agenda, this meeting is adjourned.