[Applause] Okay. I now open the regular city council meeting for the love city council for June 24th, 2025. The 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 our city's legal council and section 551.074 to discuss personnel matters. The city council is recessing at 12 well according to my watch 12:05 according to this 11:58. I'm going to say 12:05 it is. Yep. All right, city council is now reconvening in open session. I'll take a a work session for an update on impact fees and an update on sales tax as it relates to our budget. And now we'll call on our city manager, Mr. Jared Atinson, to lead this discussion. Thank you, Mayor, City Council. Welcome. Um, this will be kind of the presentation of how we got to impact fees, the recent actions, the restudy, and ultimately your capital improvement advisory committee recommendations to get us through all that. Mr. John Turpin's going to kick it off, and we've got some other folks that will assist. So, John, thank you, Jared. Good afternoon, Mayor, council. Thank you'all for allowing us the opportunity to talk about this. Um before I get started, I do want to recognize that our SEAK chair is here, Chris Barry. And I wanted to introduce uh Brandon Foresight who will be uh assisting me. He's our consultant that led us through this study. So just to get started, uh presentation outline, I'll be going through much of what y'all have already heard in previous councils. Um so impact fee basics. Um I'll talk a little bit about our collections and utilizations uh as of May 31st. So we have that up to date. um impact fee components which will be the report that you you all have received um and really where uh Brandon Foresight will come up and talk in depth about it. And then finally, we have a comparison uh versus other cities, our SEAK recommendation to you all and then uh schedule uh for upcoming dates as city council meetings. So what are they? Uh they are onetime fees for new development. um they're a mechanism for us to recover uh proportionate to uh the traffic that has been put out by new development. So they're covered by chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. And then finally, uh in Texas, you can collect water, wastewater, roadway, and drainage impact fees. Um other states allow other things. Uh so roadways, so why impact fees? Uh there's a past history here. How did we get here? Um in fact, fees reduce the burden on the general fund. Um plan love 20 240 had a developer subcommittee that actually looked at many options and came up with impact fees as their recommended option. And then finally, we need a system that funds public improvements, is fair for future development, predictable, and proportional to the impact. So, here's a look at our impact fee collection and usage. As I said, as of May 31st, 2025, uh we have collected approximately 14 million across the city and we have utilized uh a little over 5 million and we have about close to 9 million left in funding. Um those projects, I know we've talked about this before, um Upland Avenue, uh we had an overage on that project. we were able to push that project forward without affecting our general fund um by use utilizing impact fees. It crossed into areas A and F so that we utilize them from there. And then East 19th Street, we used a million dollars in impact fees. And then finally, Quaker Avenue, $1.274 million utilized towards Quaker uh Avenue from 146 to Woodro Road. So impact fees have been leveraged to construct approximately five times the value of construction versus the fees utilized. Um impact fee credits create opportunities for us to actually try to convince the developers to work with us to actually build the roads. Um impact fees can be leveraged to create not only developers agreements but pay for cost overages on any of our capacity projects. And finally, it can be utilized towards debt service. So, we've done the first two. I I don't know that we've done any for debt service yet, but we've definitely done developers agreements as well as uh cost overages for arterial projects. And then finally, some potential future upcoming projects that we have identified as uh maybe going to happen are Avenue P 146 to the Levit County line and then 114th Street upland to Alco Avenue. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Brandon Foresight. Good afternoon, council. We're going to go over all the elements of the report to ultimately get to our max fee calculations. This first slide here, we have our service areas. These were maintained from the previous boundaries, and we incorporated the annexations between the last go and this latest update. I think it's about 10 annexations that have happened since then. Um, but again, we're maintaining roughly the same service area boundaries. For the land use assumptions, we utilize base parcel data and plan lick 240 information. We did an aerial overview to get any updates that have happened since then and coordination with staff as well. We break our land use categories out into five different categories due to the different trip making characteristics on roads. Residential, we have single and multif family. From the employment side, we have basic, service and retail. Basic are your lower traffic generators. So think industrial or parks and this is lower as in a magnitude of traffic itself not trucks or anything like that. Um service is moderate trip generation office land uses and then retail is your highest trip generation are typical be big box or retail plazas for our land use assumption methodology. We take the undeveloped land and we're looking at our 10-year growth. That's what 395 requires us to look at as a 10-year planning window for these studies. We determined the holding capacity of each of the service areas. We used city plat data in the future land use map and then categorized these into our five categories and anticipated units were developed on that way. We evaluated several growth scenarios. They aligned with plan love 2040. They range from two to two and a half%. A lot of coordination and um with city staff and also CIA where we calculated a residential growth within the city of 2.2% based on back and forth and us getting comfortable with these growth rates. The previous study used a growth rate of two and a half percent. We felt that that was a little aggressive based on the data we have now. So 2.2% was more representative of development patterns. And then based on the residential percentage growth over the 10-year window, we compared that to the holding capacity from residential. And we applied that to the non-residential categories. This is a pretty busy map here, but this is all of your service areas and the breakouts of the growth within each. So we have single family, multif family, dwelling units, basic service and retail. square footage. Service area A, service area E, and service area F were our highest growth um service areas that we evaluated. We take those units and we convert them into vehicle miles of demand over the next 10 years. We take your units and you multiply it by what's called a transportation demand factor. On the residential side, our unit is a dwelling unit. So for service area A, for instance, you take 6,711 units. On the single family side, they have 2.82 vehicle miles per dwelling unit. So you multiply those together to get your single family demand and vehicle miles in service area A over 10 years. We do that for all of the single family and multif family. And on the non-residential side, you divide all these square footages by a th00and feet and then multiply that transportation demand factor to get to your vehicle miles of demand. So on the right hand side is our denominator in each of these service areas for our max fee calculation. Again, looking at a 10-year planning window. Going to go over the RCP now roadway capacity plan. We have each service area shown here, but I'm kind of going to focus in on a and get into the details first. Um, so what's shown here, we utilize a universe of projects approach. So, anything arterial or above on your thoroughare plan that is not built out to the ultimate capacity, we flag as a project. So, you have red lines which are your widening projects. So, not built out to the ultimate capacity. You need to widen that roadway. Uh the dotted red lines will be a new project. It's a green field today, brand new road. We also have um purple line work which is associated with a partial widening. So if it's planned well, you can ultimately include a median project or something along those lines where maybe you build half the section. It's a four-lane divided, two lanes on the east side, two lanes on the west side. And then finally we have our um completed projects that cities have the city has funded and those are shown in the green line works here. We also have intersection projects. Those are shown in the purple dots and what will be provided for each of these slides is your total roadway capacity cost. So every single project costed out within the service area broken out by roadways and intersections. Your 10 10 year recoverable cost. This is really driven by your land use assumption. So we trim this back for what's recoverable. And then our cost with financing. And then ultimately per chapter 395 we do a 50% credit calculation to get down to truly what is recoverable. So that bottom line is our numerator in the max fee calculation. This is again service area A is one of the highest growth service areas one of the highest cost service areas as well. Similar in service area B all those costs associated the numerator of the max fee here at $1 million. All of these will table two coming up in service area C we're about $21 million of the max fee calculation D we're about 22 E pretty large again another large service area we're at 91 F is about $57 million and our lower cost um service areas which will ultimately be recommended as no fee zones G 1.3 million of the recoverable cost and then H we did not identify any projects actually on the RCP. This is a little bit busy of a table but all of those costs that we just talked about are shown for each of the service areas here. And really again what we're taking is our total recoverable cost of the RCP with financing and credit applied. So it's the second two bottom one of the blue line work here and then you divide it by your service units to get your maximum fee. So in that blue row we have our maximum fee per service unit and service area A through H. And below that we multiply that by our transportation demand factor get a cost per single family dwelling unit. So again the bigger picture here the max fee is identified by the recoverable cost divided by your land use assumptions in vehicle miles. The calculation it's a dollar per vehicle mile is ultimately what we're calculating. This is a comparison showing the current to the proposed just focusing on single family alone. Um so all the way on the right hand side here you're seeing the proposed increase per single family permit. It ranges from anywhere from $300 to just over $1,300 within the service areas. Right now the approach that currently is happening is we're adopting 25% of what's ultimately calculated. So you're already reducing your recoverable cost by 50% per chapter 395 and then CIA and council ended up adopting 50% of that cost. So 25% of your ultimate cost. That will be the same CIC recommendation that we utilize for this study. Some municipal comparisons that we want to hit home. So you guys are just providing for roadway impact fees and charging those to developments. Other cities can require traffic impact analysis ultimately mitigation through that looking at prorata share some safety improvements potentially too for turn lanes and things of that sort. There's other things for subdivision ordinance where there's block length requirements connectivity border street policies and adjacencies sometimes depending on thoroughare plans and the requirements that are identified there. And then finally rough proportionality is utilized in other cities as well. So these are the comparison charts that we're going to go over. On the lefth hand side you have strictly a roadway impact fee calculation and that's for the I think it's roughly 10 or so comparison cities we evaluated. Um all of those are shown in the light blue. The dark blue is currently what's being adopted by love today. The CIA recommendation is shown in the highlighted yellow. And then the maximum fee that we calculated is shown in the green. Keep in mind this is for service area F. All these calculations are for service area F. And that's our highest fee zone that ultimately we are recalculated. And again, CIA's recommendation is half of what we calculated as the max fee. On the right hand side for all of these comparison slides, we have the roadway, water, and wastewater elements. So other cities are ultimately adopting all three of these rates. And so you're seeing the impact where Levik isn't ultimately charging water and waste water. We just have roadway. So, per single family home, will that be at about $3,149 um in service area F with the recommendation from CIA, we looked at apartment units. So, for a 200 apartment unit complex, again, our $2,233 per vehicle mile in service area F, half of that would be 11.65 or 116, sorry, 1,1650. And then you multiply that by your transportation demand factor again 1.17 because we're accounting for multif family units. We multiply by the number of units. We were just looking at one single family dwelling on the last side. So you ultimately multiply by 200 here to get to your calculation of the maximum fee and that would be 522,000 roughly CIC recommendation of 50% of that is 261,000 for the same use today would be about 158,000 and on the right hand side again water waste water is included for the other cities for the coffee shop land use we want to show really want to highlight the uh pass by impacts. So adjacent to Amarillo, which was does not have roadway impact fees. Sorry, this is pretty small, but we have a no indoor seating option for the coffee land uses. You can see how low those are. So we're at about $614 if we use CIA's recommendation of a 50% rate. And the reason is is because these coffee shops with no indoor seating, there's a phenomena of pass. So these are folks going from work to home, from home to work. It's 98 or so percent roughly, those trips are passed by based on IT data that we have. So any retail use, it's not going to be 98%, but depending on the use, you're going to have a pass by phenomena from a retail perspective that ultimately is being removed from these calculations. That's why that fee is so low there. Now, when we compare that to a one drive-through coffee shop, that's about 2,000 square feet. Um, you're seeing the calculated maximum fee is about 96,000 from max perspective. And again, CIC recommendation of % would be about 48,000 for that. Currently, what's being charged for that same land use is about 28,000. Now, we did this for an office building. Office buildings, we do not have a pass by phenomena, so no reductions here. But again, you take your maximum fee, $2,233 per vehicle mile, divide that by two to get our yellow, multiply that by 6.48, and then our unit here is five. You take the square footage, you divide by a,000. So we end up getting a maximum fee for a 5,000 foot office building of just over $72,000. The 50% recommendation were about $36,000. Today what would be charged is about $10,000. 15 square foot or 15,000 ft of retail. This does get reduced for pass by we have $2,233 divided by two again for the recommendation. Our TDF is 11.86. So 11 12ish vehicle miles of demand per thousand square feet of this shopping center use. And then you multiply that by 15 for your um ultimate or ultimate unit. Uh that would be just under $400,000 for 15,000 foot retail use. The CIC recommendation 50% you're at about just under $200,000. 198 currently today it's about $67,000. And then finally, our final example is an indust industrial use 20,000 square feet. you end up getting a maximum fee of $174,000. The CIC recommendation is about 87,000 and then currently today is just under 45,000. The bigger picture here and what we're trying to kind of come up with with these increases in impact fees is we've seen construction dollars through just inflation alone from 60 to 80%. So trying to kind of cover that gap ultimately that the city's going to be incurring. Pass it back to John. Thanks, Brandon. So, the CAC CEK recommendation uh as has been stated has been to follow what previous council had set at 50%. So, 50% of the max fee that we've just looked at. Um service areas A or G and H would be set at no cost zone for impacts just like the previous council. Um and then SAK made some recommendations on policies. Um they would like to see us implement a more formal onboarding policy for the SEAK because this is committee that um as you can imagine just looking at this first brush at this report, it's complicated. And so we need to do some more education with our SEAK media uh members when we bring them on so that they aren't struggling to keep up right when we first bring them on. Um so that was one of the recommendations. And then finally uh they had recommended uh for council to use impact fees as much as possible towards our bond projects uh was one of the recommendations as well. So finally uh we'll look at the impact fee schedule. what's upcoming. Uh July 8th, we're looking at a public hearing to actually look for council to actually uh consider adopting uh our report for the LUA or the land use assumptions and the roadway capacity plan as an action item. Uh so there'll be a public hearing at that date and then July 22nd would uh be a second public hearing for potentially adopting any change to the impact fee ordinances uh should y'all want to uh change the current fee. Uh so that would be the first reading and then finally August 12th would be our second reading of the ordinance. And with that have any questions? Any questions from the council? So, I've got Oh, Mr. Harris, start with you. Oh, I was just wondering if uh ex Councilwoman Patterson like to have something to say on this matter. Not this one. Mr. Collins couple of questions to I don't know how many of us I wasn't here when this when we started this process so it's a it's quite a ramp up for me to understand what you went through in 15 or 20 slides but couple of questions I had number one is the is the methodology fixed when we look at a coffee shop for example that has the same fee cost structure based upon as a 5,000 square foot office building that's fixed. You you can't alter that. Correct. Um I mean because I think it's way more burdensome, you know, to if I wanted to be in the coffee shop business than it would be for me to build an office complex and and so therefore how does that impact, you know, what businesses try to um to engage in in business here in Lok? I guess I'm I'm I'm not completely understand your your question, Councilman Collins. I guess uh so are you saying that it's more burdensome for the coffee shop than the Well, the number was about the same. Uh the cost associated with building a coffee shop versus the cost associated with building an office building was about the same cost from an impact beast standing. It's all purely based on the traffic impact of the coffee shop. So for instance, the coffee shop with no seating had a very high pass by rate. So the the traffic impact there was very low and so the fee was low. Um but if they have indoor seating it's assumed that there will be a certain number of the proponents that visit that business that are actually intending at that as their stop and so definitely for an office complex. They're all going there to spend their day there at work most likely. And so there's no pass by. And I think that's is that what you're Well, it is somewhat. But I think if we look at this coffee shop for example that has no seating then we're assuming that's a destination and and their only business is going to be driving specifically to that destination whereas uh you know maybe they have more maybe they have less but I guess my real question is is that is a predetermined factor that that you don't you don't vary from. Yes. So we utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation information. So you take your trip rate during a PM peak hour and then ultimately the retail uses have different pass by rates associated with them. Office does not have anything. The 98% for the no indoor seating is much higher than I believe it's something like 70 or so percent for a typical coffee shop ultimately. So we take it the typical typical coffee shop has a different PM peak hour rate than the indoor coffee shop. So all these land uses in that report there's what's called the love map the land use vehicle mile equivalency table. We have probably I'm going to say 70 or so land uses ultimately that we're calculating that transportation demand factor. So all of your land uses are going to have a different transportation demand factor. So when it's a residential use, you take your number of units times your transportation man factor times your number of units dwelling units. When it's a res or retail use or office or service, industrial, whatever it may be, same transportation demand factor times your calculated fee times the square footage divided by a thousand. So it's all based off of the actual rate pass by information and things of that sort for the proposed land use ultimately. So there and I guess really the crux of the question is there's a table you follow and you don't vary from the table and so it's provided you know by the state or or by other so it's the table again your rate minus pass by gets a a origin destination factor. You don't want to charge for the in-n-out. It's 50% for that. And so you ultimately get a transportation demand factor for all of these land uses in that table itself. Okay. Okay. Second question. Sorry to get not to get too much in the weeds, but there is an opportunity for the proponent to submit a traffic analysis of their business. So if they have good data, they can provide that to us if they don't believe that our data is appropriate. Tim, let me just jump in real quick before we go to your second question to follow up on your question. So where does the data come from? the Institute of Transportation Engineers, uh, they have a trip generation manual. They do nationwide studies for all of these land uses that we include in that LOM. Okay. So, any city in Texas that does this uses that same information. All transportation engineers would use that for the impact basis. Yes. Okay. Yeah. So, that that's that's one. Thank you. I think on slide number 10, we showed uh 6711 dwelling units in in uh our area A as a that's correct. And so is that is that 6711 are those the existing homes today or is that the that's for the 10ear plan. That's for the 10ear plan. So we're going to take the 10-year number and use it to calculate the costs associated for today. Yeah. So we take our calculation of the recoverable cost in each of these service areas and you divide it by the vehicle miles of demand within each of the service areas over a 10-ear planning window. And again that 10-year window is chapter 395 requirement. required to look at that 10 year planning window. Okay. So, you have to project that and and we're using this 2.2 um percent growth factor to get there. So, correct. Assumingly, we've got, you know, 4,000 houses today. 2.2 over 10 years, we're going to get to 67. We went more citywide and then kind of backed into it. But that that is correct. Yes. Okay. All right. That's that's how Thank you, Mr. Rose. Uh these would be rudimentary questions, but can you go back to the coffee shop slide just so just so I understand. So um on the left just strictly roadway impact fee. So the blue is what if I was going to build a coffee a 2,000 foot square foot coffee shop in what district is this in or section? I'm sorry. F F. If I was going to build a coffee shop in F today, that would be what I would the 28,000. Correct. Yes, sir. And then the yellow is what SEAK is recommending. Yes. And then the green would be the state maximum. Correct. Okay. And if I heard you right, none of these are calculated the same. In fact, some of them are the rate is different. The rate's different depending on what's needed for roadways and everything like that. You do have some uses, too. So, it can be off drive-through lanes. Other uses that aren't typical for a thousand square feet. We can change that unit ultimately per whatever it kind of recommends there. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Okay. A follow-up question for me. So looking at that same slide, the current 28,441 and the yellow for the recommended, they're both at the 50% I mean the 25% 50% of the allowable rate which is 25%. What accounts for the difference between the current and the future is because of no no change in the methodology or this uh data that you use. That's all that's stayed consistent, right? They haven't rewritten it to where we may it's overall methodology. No, no change there. We may have a couple additional projects. Our land use assumptions might have shifted a little bit based on plat data and things of that sort that we have now versus what we had back in the 2022 study. Okay. So just as succinctly as possible, what accounts even though the rate is staying the same, what accounts for the almost well not double but 40% increase or whatever it would be. Mayor minus the annexations he's just pointed out, it's going to be primarily inflation of costs on the projects. Okay, that's what I inflation of costs. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Gene, one other question. the way that the impact fees work. When are the impact fees paid? So they are assessed at the time of plat they are collected at the building permit. So about the time when the the tenant the owner would be actually taking and occupying the the building. So before they so it's before they can actually build their building. So when they actually get approved to get their building permit they have to pay it at that point before construction begins. Yes sir. One thing that stands out to me is the difference in impact between um kind of the the cost contribution to the end users at these different categories. And I understand the reasoning behind it, but you know, it looks like we're increasing the cost of a single family home from anywhere, you know, from half a percent to one and a half percent of probably, you know, the final purchase price. And on a 60 to 75,000 square foot grocery store, for example, you know, that that cost would be probably somewhere from 800,000 to a million or more. And that could be a, you know, maybe ballpark 10% increase in their their construction cost. Um and so that's a that's a concern that I have looking at this and yes sir just the the risk and the impact of the negative impact it's confusing to use the word impact the negative effect of impact fees on on growth and development because the long-term benefit to the city it comes from um the growth itself but then the contribution of the general fund over time to from property tax and sales max is going to be I think uh so much greater than than what we collect on the front end. Those are just some of the concerns that I have looking at it from this. Uh the other thing I'll say is that kind of concerned about where these recommended fees would put us in comparison to other cities across the state. Our max fee would be putting us at the top of the charts across the comparisons that we have and even the 50% collection rate. We're still going to be pretty aggressive in comparison to other cities. I want to make sure that Leach is a competitive, desirable place for um people to come and live, buy a home, start a business, and things like that. Mr. Rose um on David's point, what like a let's say a standard market street, United Market Street here. Do you guys have anything off the top of your head that you would know what that would be under current and recommended? What was what was the ask it like a standard size um United grocery store here? What would that fee be? I honestly I don't I think it'd be kind of closer to somewhere in the retail 15,000 or so square feet, you're going to have a much higher square footage, but right, I don't have the ger on the top of my head, unfortunately. Okay, thank you. We can come back with that information though for our next reading. Mr. Collins, thank you again, Mayor. So, and I think you said this and I'm reiterating it uh to for my own clarity. The assessment is done at the time of platting. So when a plat is filed and approved by the by the city, it's determined what that particular uh location is going to pay. Yes, sir. But there's no collection at that point. That is correct. Yes, sir. It it lets the developer know uh what the the maximum impact fee would be and then it's not actually collected until they actually get the building permit. Okay. And so if it's if it's uh determined at the time of platting. It doesn't change if it's five years later, seven years later, seven days later, the determination is is set. Is that correct? Yes. It's based on plat that will hold. Yes. And so that doesn't so if we if we if someone has a plat today uh and they've had a determination and we make these changes that are being proposed or or whatever then their their plat number remains the same tied to that time frame that those were set that original that original time frame. So if you if I've got a residential development with 250 lots in it it's been assessed um as as that building go process goes through the impact fee doesn't change. That is correct sir. Yes sir. Okay. So the max the maximum impact fee cannot change. So that's when you get it assessed you're looking at the maximum possible impact towards the plan. And so if the council determines whatever collection rate they're going to utilize but the max is still there. So unless we change from our our collection rate percentage it doesn't change. And would it even change? Can we even change the collection rate percentage in reverse to those projects that are already determined? They're tied up at that platform. They're done. So, anything that's platted today is done. It's all then it get reassessed at that point. Okay. All right. So, there there's one point. Um, second point, you know, that I want to that I want to make here in in regard to that then is is typically when a developer does a plat and and puts a starts to put a project together, he's putting that project together for a user, whether it be a homeowner or a tenant. Well, and maybe not even tenant, owner occupied. Maybe I'm going to do a custom build office building uh for for a new owner. So essentially the payer of that fee is the user. Yes sir. Okay. So not necessarily the developer. He's not asked to collect that at platting. And so when he gets a permit and he's sold this project, sold that house, um then the you it's built into his cost and it's the user that's that's essentially paying for that. Yes, sir. That's what that's what I believe that they would do is pass. Owner occupied is going to look a little different. um build a to lease might look a little bit different build to own and lease but but otherwise you know typically a builder is going to collect that fee from the owner user uh in the build. Yes sir. Okay that's all I had till I can think of something else. Yes. Are you u comparing Labok to other cities? We have these other cities on here. Do they all collect at the same rate we collect at? No, it'll it'll vary city to city. And I guess are there any cities out there that collect the full 50%. Yes. Okay. And I'm assuming from this Amarillo does not collect any of the available fees at all. They don't have road fees. Okay. I don't Okay. I do see Midland on here. Do you know what Midland does? I think it's somewhere around 50% but yeah I don't have that off the top of my head to be honest with you. Okay. All right. These are all So what we have here your green is your max. All of these Yeah. That's if we collected the full 50%. All of these for the light blue are what they're collecting. Yeah. And so the the green for us is if we collected all fees all all available fees at the full 50% rate which we're not likely to do. you know, ever. But, um, okay, I just wanted to understand the chart. Whereas a new Bronul is likely to be doing that full 100%. That's why you're seeing them be so high up there. And then other cities again have water waste water as well kind of to combine with all of this. And again, like you you got the two charts here. So, the one on the right, the yellow there, it's the same amount, but it says roadway impact fee plus weight water plus waste water. That's still just assuming we're just going to collect the maximum. I mean that we're still going to only collect the one rate. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. All right. I think that's bad. Not the greatest example there from that perspective. I would be somewhere more in this range for how we're comparing these ultimately. But all right, those were high. And just the only other thing I'll say, and it's my pet peeve, is when you do these things and you use a uh acronym, you know, use abbreviations, the first time you use it, say what it is, all right before you use it again, please. All right. All right. Any other questions? If when I am no longer mayor, I hope I leave that legacy behind me. That's one of my legacies I hope I leave. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Now, I'll call on our city manager, Mr. Atinson, to talk about sales, tax, and budget updates. Thank you, mayor. We're going to switch the inputs just here real quickly. Everybody should have this up on the screen. I'm going to attempt to make this the nonacronym presentation. So, please hold me accountable, mayor. We'll work on this. Okay. Council, this is a followup to the presentation we had a little while ago. As you recall, something's not working. Okay, now we'll try. Um, if you'll recall, we talked about what we thought was the trend on our sales tax collections and what we would need to do to balance this current year's budget. As you know, we get a sales tax report from the state of Texas. Supposed to be the first Wednesday of the first full week of each month, but then it is actually two months behind. So, we've had two more of those since we had that presentation. Uh, I'm going to talk about what we have in this report and then at the end I'm going to go a little bit uh into what I see this doing as we start into the next year. Full caveat, it is all subject to change and the next sales tax report that we will get is July 9th. It's one day after our first council meeting. So with that, let's uh Yay, and it worked. Let's look at numbers. Um the change in this versus the last time you saw it as we filled in another month on there. Sales tax budget, and remember sales tax goes exclusively to the general fund. Sales tax is the largest funding source for the general fund. We budgeted sales tax collections in this current fiscal year to be 105.6 million. That's the number just just to the right of the center down at the bottom. If you move to the right, you will see what we have actually collected. So that's the column with the black numbers that doesn't extend all the way down. And then the column next to it is how our model starts to forecast from what we're seeing. Blue number on the bottom line that is the predicted sales tax collection through the remainder of this year. So on a budget of 105.6 we have a forecast of 100 million.8 8 100,800,000. So it's a shortfall of about $4.8 million or if you look at it in percentage points, it's a negative 4.6% collection. Um to kind of illustrate just the scale, and I know the council's well aware of this, but for folks that are listening, sales tax is the largest source budgeted at 105.6. Your second largest source is property tax and it's the M O or maintenance and operation port portion. That budget's 89.3 for the current year. So property tax sometimes can kind of be analogized to the way that say a water rate works where you have a base rate, you have a consumptive rate. Your base rate's exactly what it is set to be and that's what it'll be. That's how our property tax works. sales tax is exactly consumption. So, it moves around. You've seen this chart. It's just been extended out to accumulate the latest data. Um, statewide, it's just still a little bit weird. We have two municipalities in the top 20. And the way the state does the top 20 as it relates to sales tax, it's sales tax collections, not top 20 population. We have two cities with double-digit year-over-year increases. The bulk of us are somewhere between that zero to just, you know, two or 3% compared to prior year. And there's two on that report that are actually under the zero line. So, they have collected less than they collected in the prior year. But just put this up here to illustrate it's still not acting in a a typical fashion. So, what do we really know about this? Again, current year's budget um was a 6.6% increase over the prior year's actual. As we've gone through the first seven months, our collections are under again four and a half%. We look like we're going to end up at about 4.6 or 4.8 million below. Um, the state always reports on what their collections look like. And remember, we pay 8 and a4%. 6 and a quarter% of that is what's kept by the state. Um, upward trend for the state. Motor fuel taxes. City does not get motor fuel taxes. Motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle rental taxes are up for the state. We don't get those either. natural gas production up quite significantly and that's not a source that comes back to any of the municipalities. Um oil production though is down really by the same percentage. Scales are different but percentage wise it's it's an offset. And then hot tax, we do get of course hot tax. And if I look at the lodging reports that we get, we're one to two% down year-over-year in all the lodging tax. While things are not logical in how they're curving out or how they're showing up on the graphs, they're at least being consistent. So, our initial response to this was to freeze all open positions excluding public safety and associated savings. We did that. I've made very, very few exceptions and those have been for critical jobs that we just really need to fill. We showed you a number when we were here prior on the estimated health insurance savings. The number I gave you was a little bit understated, so we brought that back up. We talked then about the not needing to spend the election cost money. We budget an election expense each year and then obviously if council doesn't call an election in that fiscal year, we don't need the dollars. So that's coming back. that one would have come back regardless. Kind of what I'm calling the step two responses. And these are really savings. These are dollars we're just not going to spend. Fuel and natural gas. Uh some of that is because we've had better pricing for this year. We really have. Um training and travel will be frozen other than those things that are essential. there are people who have to have certain hours for certain licenses and so forth and that will go on. But beyond that, it's it's going to be pulled down very tight. We have a laundry list, it's not on this page, of different equipment uh and materials that we're just going to hold back on purchasing. And I've provided a list there of some various cash funded CIPs or capital improvement projects. Now, a comment as it relates to the capital projects. If we have a favorable reversal, if things go back up, we will one at a time start restoring those capital projects. They've passed muster through a budget through the city council. They're needed projects, but they can be deferred. That's what we're going to look at doing here. And so, you can see the list kind of that goes down um with those. But my commitment to y'all is those dollars will be accounted for separate and if things push us back up above the line, we will restore these projects. If not, then they'll have to start fighting in the budget process each year just as all other capital projects do and we'll try to kind of put them back back in there. So questions up to this point, I'm going to flip over and show what I think this does for the next year too, but I'm going to kind of stop on the current state of affairs. see if you have any questions and and remember all general fund general fund only for what we're talking about. Uh Mr. Aerson, so going back to your uh slide, I don't remember whether it was a page two maybe. Um this one right here. Yes. So the assumptions for the uh May, June, July, August, September, where did you get those assumptions from? What factor did you use to reduce uh from your budget to get to those? I could do the math, I guess, but is there a standard? I mean, like last month, we were only off under 1%. So, if we continued that uh forward, you know, just 1%, would that number be different? Yeah. If the model was a flatline model, yes, exactly. It would do that. We know historically that this model runs backwards for many, many years and we true it up at the end of each year. There are inherently months throughout the year that your sales tax collection is greater. So the model weights that one heavier than it does to what would typically be a short month. So November and December good good sales tax months pretty historical because of online it seems like really the big Christmas bump is starting to shift into November in many years but it works like that. We haven't just waited on the historical averages of how our total sales tax gets collected. So those those figures like let's take May 8,134,946 that's weighted according to what you I mean you took that number out of the total you anticipated getting and weighted it according to what you traditionally get or historically get in the month of May. Is that correct on the on the forecast? Yes. On the forecast on the forecast side of it. Yes sir. So what factor did you use and what criteria did you use to reduce that to the 7,978,900 as a forecast amount? How did you how did you arrive at that for your forecast amount? I don't have the weight that's in the model. We can get it for you. It is the it's it's a weighted average per each month of each year compared to the total. Okay. But I'm going to assume it's well I don't know. Okay. Now what my question was and I don't know if you can provide this if the following months only uh underperformed our budgeted forecast of 8 million 10 million 8 million 8 million 10 million by 1% as May did. Where would we end up? That's what I was trying to figure out. Would we be five million down or would we be three million down or you would be less than five. Um I'm just hoping May is more of a indicator of what the rest of the year is going to be like than some of those other months. But I don't know. Of course, as are as are you. We we are as well. Yes. Please understand, but we've had double digit down months that carry out through this track record. I've got months that are up. um you you go back and you look to the first one received the October which is collected in December but you look at the October one at 7% that doesn't you know really get us to to moving but when the month behind it which would generally be when sales tax trs up you may have had somebody that was slow pay for a month certain retailers pay on quarters the model's aware of that that's where you get into that weighted average over over history, but we went from a month at the start of the year that didn't really cause a lot of attention to one that was almost double digit down. That would have been the November money. So, we can get it to where you can see what all is behind this and we can also run forecasts on different levels. I think maybe that's kind of what you're asking about. Yeah. Can it get better than this? Yes, it can. All right. But this is a trend throughout the state and from something I read the other day, it's a trend throughout the whole United States as I've seen it. It is. Okay. All right. And there there are several lowhanging fruits at the national level that if they were to change, I think you will see these things change and change rapidly. The good the good thing of sales tax is it responds quickly in the upward direction. And the bad thing is it will do the same going on the downward direction. Any other questions? Are you going to proceed? You got more. Okay. Just not going to get into a lot of detail for next year, but I do want to start to set the stage on that. Um, using the sheet we just left, sheet two, and all those forecast at the moment, the number that we'll start next year's budget at is 103.5 million. Remember, we're 105.6 this year, but we're going to be shy or predicted to be shy, so we've adjusted for the next year. You see those percentage changes kind of underneath it. The the last one's the operative one. If this year holds the way we look right now, we're going to predict sales tax would only increase by about 2.7% for fiscal year 2026. So, I'm kind of starting with a little bit, you know, of a hole right there. Property values for the budget purposes are what we call preliminary values and we get those early in the spring each year. public central appraisal district goes through its process of hearing appeals making different adjudications and findings trueing up have a lot of work that they do and then we get what's called a certified value and that is generally provided to us on the last Friday of July so we have to build a budget on a preliminary then we get in a big hurry to adjust to match what we get as our certified values the valuation change that you see year-over-year on what is called existing property. So my house last year was $100,000. By state law, it can only be changed by 10%. If they max me out, it's 110 for the following year. That change really doesn't have impact on our budgets because as we do tax rates, we zero that back out. That that's the true definition of a no new revenue tax rate. So I love to see the valuation of love growth because that people have invested and they're seeing the value of those investments in their real property. It doesn't drive how we do the budgets. No new revenue is getting the same dollar from the same property last year or this year. Basic plus you get the value of what is called new property. So that's that's kind of the final line on here. New property. New property is property that came onto the tax roll. So it was a vacant lot at December 30th last year and by whatever February, March, it was a home. It was occupied. The value increased. That's considered new property. It didn't pay tax on its improved value for that one year. New property. And I I can't say that it has no impact on the no new revenue rate because there's a bunch of exemptions and things kind of behind the calculation, but generally speaking, if you're going to if you look at a no- new revenue number last year to this year, you'll see that the new one is a little bit bigger. That little bit bigger is strictly the value of the new property. Right now, my preliminary new property values are lower than expected. In fact, they're lower than the last many years. Our best estimate right now is new property when we when we zero all the rates back down is really going to come in at about maybe 2 somewhere between 2.4 and 2.8 million. So, your decrease in sales tax and your new property values are going to end up being pretty close to each other year-over-year. So, what will we do from here forwards? Um, first, everything that was on the slides preceding this one, we will put in place. We'll do that. We'll pull down expense to match where we end up with revenue as we start the next year's budget. And again, general fund only. As we start that budget, we're going to start that budget literally just as flat as it can be. There are certain things I cannot control. And those are generally where you have a supply or a contractual agreement that has a year-over-year escalator. It's like I can't zero that stuff out, but I can zero almost all the rest of it. And then as we look at what our other revenues, other sources, and other demands are, we'll start in on the budget. So, let me talk just real briefly about other sources. Um, and council, this is in the management report that we send y'all every month. So, you're you're able to dig in there and see these same things. We had this discussion a couple of months ago. All in my revenues other than sales tax had a pretty good positive trend. Just a few percentage points, but collectively it's pretty good. Some of those have started to flatten back out. I've got some that are just under the line, some that are just above the line. If I take everything on the other sources out except for or take interest out and just go back to the regular sources, we're still going to come in at or just slightly over the budget for those. Where we're seeing a good increase is in our interest income. Um, so in the general fund that could conceivably be in the $3 million range by the time we get to the end of the year. Now, some of that depends on when big payments hit and stuff like that, but that's actually outperforming. Some of that money needs to go into the debt service funds and it'll get transferred at the end of the year. But I think still we're going to be above the line for everything other than sales tax. But until I keep getting more reports that make a trend much more solid and logical, need to make the savings that I put up on the charts for you. So, any questions on that? Any questions for the council? All right. Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Atinson. Thank you. Wish it had been better news. I think this is a sober reflection what you got up here right at the moment. So, all right. Okay. We're going to continue now going into our uh um regular session. Uh we'll take up our ceremonial items and is Minister Tom Raskque here is our Yeah. Okay, let's take a quick break. We'll take a quick 10-minute break. We'll be back here in 10 minutes. All right. Council is now reconvening and we will take up our ceremonial items. First, I'm going to call on Minister Tom Rask with Church of the Blessed International to lead us in our invocation, followed by our mayor, Pro Tim, who will lead us in our pledges to the United States and the Texas flags. Will you please stand for this? Let us pray. Well, Father, we are so grateful today. Wow. That we are even be able to get up and we know that it says in the Bible that Jesus Christ, all things were created by him, for him, and he holds all things together. So, thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, for holding us together and giving us one more day to serve you. I thank this council team. They have made the choice to serve our community and serve one another. And so, Lord, I pray that you give them wisdom in all that they do. And I know that the the devil comes to steal, kill, and destroy. But I ask, oh Lord, that as you are the provider of life, that you will give us all a unity of peace and patience and kindness and goodness and gentleness and faithfulness and self-control that is listed as the fruits of the spirit. I ask now Lord also that as these guys and girls, ladies and gentlemen come together that they will realize that the biggest thing that is needed is humility, humbleness to serve one another, considering each one is more important than yourself. I thank you for our mayor. I voted for him. Yay. I'm glad he's part of the team too. So I ask Lord as these people come together that uh they'll leave with a smile on their face today in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Amen. If you'll now all join us and as we recite our pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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 flag. I aliance to the Texas one state under God. One and indivisible. All right. Um before we begin our our citizen comment time, I want to take just a moment of personal privilege to recognize a few people here today. Uh this will be the last city council meeting we have before our city celebrates along with our nation our Fourth of July uh holiday. Uh just such a momentous event in the uh life of our country. I just returned from France um for the commemoration of D-Day in Normandy and it was just amazing to to be a part of that celebration. And now 81 years later, uh those people in those cities are still so grateful to the American soldiers who helped liberate them. They still celebrate it as if that was yesterday. Um they are proud of what uh our nation has done. I think uh we can all be proud of things in our uh country's history uh that that make us proud. And so as we celebrate as a city this wonderful thing as we always have with a u a parade I want to recognize three particular people today who have worked very hard to make sure that that happens. Uh as many of you know, Don Caldwell passed away and his uh last year and uh his group had uh carried this parade and this ceremony and festival forward for many many years and without him we were kind of wondering if we were going to be uh able to pull that off but because of the hard work of these people we are. First, I want to recognize first of all our mayor pro Tim uh Christy Martinez Garcia and her group loanos Familia uh for putting together the parade and uh it's she's done an outstanding job of making sure everybody uh is going to be participating in that. Our own uh assistant city manager, Brooke Witcher. Brooke, would you stand? Where are you? I know you're here somewhere. Yeah, stand up, Brooke. Don't just raise your hand. Brooke has just worked so hard on this. Uh, you know, um, it's just been amazing to see everything that she's done to pull this together. And then, uh, Civic Love, Lisa Thomasson. I think I saw you here. Yes. Stand up. Thank you, Lisa. These three people have worked so hard to make sure that this, uh, celebration and this festival is going to come out. And I want us to give a real round of applause and appreciation for them. [Applause] All right. Uh, we're not going to take up citizen comments. According to Le City Council rules, any citizen wishing to appear in person before a regular meeting of the city council regarding any matter posted on our agenda should complete a sign up form provided for the meeting no later than 2:00 p.m. on the uh date of the meeting. And uh please remember as you come forward to give us your name and uh your address. And uh you'll have three minutes to make your comments. Uh and please uh let us know what item you are speaking to. I will call out that item as you put it on your sheet, filled it out. A warning bell will sound when you have 30 seconds left uh to make your uh comments. And so I'm now going to call uh and welcome her today, our former council person, Sheila Patterson Harris, uh forward. She wants to speak on agenda item 2.2. Good afternoon, council mayor, council members, city manager, city attorneys, city secretary, all of you guys. It is at 2303 Birch Avenue. Sorry, I almost got caught with that. Kind of nervous being on this side of the mic, but we we'll make it happen. I am here to speak on item 2.2 to in uh I think the specific term was the sales tax and budget update. The item that I am specifically uh referencing is a neighborhood planning program and projects. I am very concerned because several years ago those funds were placed there and it is the uh as a part of the 2040 plan so that neighborhoods in the northern and eastern portions of the city could be could have plans created and come up with projects to make things a little bit more uh uh can't think of the right word neighborhoodish. We'll go with that one. And there's been so many citizens who have been excited, so many neighborhood associations who have been excited to utilize that program. And I also add that I am the new Chapman Hill neighborhood uh chairperson. So I am speaking on their behalf given because we have submitted several projects to be completed and they were not I understand that um we're only dealing with one staff member who's actually doing what we hired six individuals to do prior two with the consultants. Um but it still doesn't take away the need and the requests that were being submitted by the various neighborhoods and who have been waiting for that to happen. Now we're at this juncture juncture where uh the plan is to or the request is being made to freeze those funds so that these citizens again will not be allowed to uh sub uh have their projects uh come to fruition. I'm very concerned about that because as again stated, these are funds that have been allocated several years ago and it is not the neighborhood's uh problem or they didn't create the problem of not having the funds spended. I would ask and I would seek the uh support of the council members to take a look at that and understand that the citizens there in the northern and eastern portion cities uh portions of the city deserve the exact thing that they were advised that they would receive and that would be access to the funding to make neighborhood plans or create projects and have them come to fruition to make a difference in their neighborhood. Again, I'll ask you that each of you lived in a neighborhood within this city and just imagine if it was your neighborhood who was sitting waiting for some things, some great things to happen and then the rug gets pulled from underneath them. I ask that you take a look at this and please support the idea of not having that pro those projects taken away. Thank you. Thank you, M. Patterson Harris. And I will note that um the heater that used to be down at your end has moved closer to me, but it's still Dr. Wilson I think has taken it over now. It has not moved all the way to my part of the uh that I have two more individuals in support of what I just All right. Uh next I'm going to call up Josh Shankles. Uh and he's requested to speak on agenda item 2.1. Mr. Shankles. Good afternoon, council. My name is Joshua Shinkles and I'm proud to be super gay at 2600 block of 47th Street here in Leach. And I'm here to talk to you guys about impact fees. Uh my favorite topic and um one that I'm somebody in town who happens to actually know how this works. And I want to remind the council that the reason why impact fees came into existence is because the only business in luck that costs the city money upfront is development. Every other business endeavor that is undertaken in the city generates money for the city upfront. But development costs the city money upfront because we have to build all the infrastructure. For the entirety of the city's existence, the developers were able to externalize their cost of doing business to the taxpayers of the city of Labok, and we absorbed that until we implemented impact fees. Now, I want to address a few of council member David Glashin's uh comments during work session because you're so unscrutable, council member, during the budget, you're like, I like sales tax because people should pay for what they use. that's a good way to do this. Then impact fees come up where people have to pay for what they generate for the cost that they generate and suddenly it's like no I don't think this is a good way for us to calculate how we you know bring in revenue. So I I also want to address this notion that growth pays for growth that it's just going to this growth that's going to magically come is going to pay for everything. That never worked. That's how we got to the impact fees in the first place. We didn't just think of it out of thin air. The impact fees were came up with because this notion that we were going to grow our way through development out of the cost to build roads and drainage infrastructure and police stations and school houses and fire trucks. No, it's never going to happen. The impact fees have to be there. And then here comes this budget crisis because everybody had to have their performative no new revenue rate, right? And then suddenly sales tax falls off and it's like, "Oh, uhoh, now we have a now we have a budget situation we got to work out." When you could have just let it cruise. We were on cruise control. No, but we had to have no new revenue. All performative. Cut the cut down on the libraries so we could get no new revenue. Now, here comes we're not receiving the money from the sales tax all of a sudden. So, what are we going to do? We're going to drop impact fees like the mayor suggested during his campaign when we can't afford that. Mr. Mayor, how are we going to build those roads? I also want to say that as far as increasing the cost of a grocery store, a house or whatever, no, it doesn't have to increase. They could build it in a place with no impact fees like service areas in the interior of town. If they want to build it on the exterior of town in a corn in what used to be a cotton field, then pay the impact fees. You want to pay no impact fees. You want to increase the cost of a home none. Come into the middle of town. Build a home. There's plenty of empty space in the middle of town. Okay. Thank you, council. Bye. All right. That's all that we had sign up for comments today. So, we'll move on. I'll take up agenda item 5.1, the minutes for our May 22nd, 2025 special council meeting, the May 27th, 2025 regular city council meeting, and the May 27, 2025 special city uh council meeting. Is there a motion to approve item 5.1? Is there a second? Second, Mr. Collins. All right. Any uh changes or amendments to that or edits to it? All right. All in favor letting me know by saying I. I. Any oppose say no. All right. Passes unanimously. We'll now take up uh item six, the consent agenda. Uh there's been a request to pull item 6.7 and item 6.15. There will be a uh recusal on. So I will entertain a motion now to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items 6.7 and 6.15. That's what I've got here is 6.15. Um, M Mr. Mayor, 6.7 is correct on the poll. Yep. Um, so that will be separate consideration. 6.15 will be the recusal. I think the sheet that was put at your place is in error. I believe it says 6.27 and that's not correct. That's not correct. There there was one that said 6.27, but that is incorrect. That is that is incorrect. 6 6.7 is the pull and 615 is the recusal item. Yes, sir. So, we're going to take up the consent item, consent agenda with the exception of those two items, 6.7 and 6.15. Apologize for any uh error there or misunderstanding. So, is there a motion? I have a motion, a second. Any discussion? So, all in favor, let me know by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. Hear none. That motion to approve uh passes unanimously. I'll now take up item 6.7 and I'm going to call on our city engineer, Mr. John Turpin, to come forward and provide a briefing for us on this item. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make the first attempt and Mr. Turpin is available if uh if we need him. So item 6.7 is a street use license agreement between the city of CBC Central Suites. Uh this actually impacts three different streets, Glenna Goodacre, Mac Davis, and Avenue X. And this is for a 20-year street use license agreement. Uh there was actually a prior agreement with a different entity for street banners in this area to advertise the student housing in the area. And the new entity has come forward has come forward and would like to proceed with a similar arrangement to continue to allow uh for banners on street lights. Uh I will say this is a a rather outlier unusual type of street street use license agreement. Typically, we see this for things like uh you know, street use license agreement for an awning in the rideway or seating in the rideway for a restaurant, an irrigation line to run run underneath a roadway. So, this one's a little bit unique. Not very many of these. Actually, the only one that we're aware of that's similar to this one. Uh but this one actually uh again is a minimum of a $500 fee. These are normally calculated to take into account the use of square footage in the ride ofway. and we then we take the and adjust it with the LCAD value. So we we try to adjust that, keep up with inflation and doing that, but the minimum fee if it doesn't uh exceed $500 is $500. And again, this one with it being, you know, basically banners on street lights, it's it fell to the minimum of $500 for a 5year period. Uh again, it's a 20-year agreement, so a total of $2,000 over that 20-year period. And with that, be happy to attempt to address any questions or comments you have. Any questions, Mr. Glain? Thank you. I pulled this uh item to talk about it because it's a little bit different than the other street use agreements that we have and I've got a few follow-up questions. Thank you for the for the briefing on it, though. Yes, sir. Um the fee of $500. Do you feel Well, first, um that's a default minimum fee. It's a default minimum. Five years ago, it was a ride at 250. So, it was adjusted five years ago to the $500 with the idea to attempt to cover staff time application cost to process one. So, not letting it drop below that $500. Is the $500 fee a onetime fee or is that going to be paid every year? It's paid every five years. And do you um think that given the amount of staff time involved in a request like this that that fee is appropriate? I I think it is. It's one that we probably need to look at soon in the next year or two. Uh, but in thinking about staff time, the process, it lines up with some of our other application fees and planning. So, we still feel the $500 is appropriate. The street use agreement has been to allow the apartment complex to place signs on street lights. Is that right? That's correct. Yes, sir. Is there anything in the agreement that covers um what is or not allowed um for the content of the signs? No, sir. Is there anything, for example, that would stop them from, you know, advertising for an unrelated business on the sign? No, sir. Um, and could anybody in the city apply for a street use agreement like this? For example, if there's a business on 34th that wants to put a sign on the the street light in front of their business, would they be able to go through the same application process? Yes, sir. They could. And who's going to actually install the signs? Uh, and they need to be changed out. This is the responsibility of the entity. So in this case, CBC would be responsible. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? So I I I may promip. It's not much of a question. It's more of a comment. And just to let you know, those banners are very expensive to produce. And so they don't go up like you're not seeing them all the time or changing. They probably go up and they are there for about a year or two. So it's not happening all the time. And you know, it's not that it's an easy job, but I think it gives a little bit of pride to the area. It gives a little bit of um, you know, there, like you said, it's a very unique area. And so it kind of brings in folks and and just creates a, you know, it's an opportunity to promote a project, um, athletics, just some pride in the businesses. So, I don't think it's a bad thing, but we probably do need to in the future probably look at maybe increasing the amount, but right now, I don't think it is a problem. So, I just leave it at that. Yeah. A lot of people currently use our street polls and everything for advertising, but without paying that fee, just posting a sign on them. So, um uh so my my question on this is um Love is an incredibly windy city. You put these banners up. I see them and they're beautiful for a while and then they start to come apart. They uh fall apart. They're flapping in the breeze. Is there anything in our code or anything that requires them to maintain them in an attractive manner? you know, so that they don't become just an ugly attachment to a street light. Certainly think it's something that could be addressed in the agreement that's before you. You as the council actually have the ability at any time to pull out of the agreement with or without cause. So if there was ever an issue, you would have the ability to use that as leverage to to require they remain in good condition. And there's also liability in there where if they were to damage a light pole that they would be responsible for bringing it back up to par. Okay. All right. Any other questions? I see none. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, wait. Oh, Mr. Collins. Thank you. Um, so, you know, signage is always an issue in our community and and our community standards about signage and and I think this speaks to that just a little bit. Is it appropriate that we address some of these questions prior to entering into this agreement? um you know about maintenance, about liability, about liability, not over not only for the street pole, but for the flag that might happen to fly off and land in the wrong spot, whatever. Um you know, would it be appropriate for us to postpone this and um look more deeply into the into the issue before we um sign a five-year agreement? And and I guess that's my you know that's my question both for you and for the rest of the council. And I guess to answer my question I would move that we u postponing this motion uh date specific and the next one is next the next meeting is July 8th. I think we should you're going to have the fourth in the middle of that. So maybe push it back 22nd. Okay. Or August 8th. Mr. Wade, I think you had a comment. I was just going to say that they are required to sit there and get both liability insurance and property insurance right now within the license agreement. They also indemnify us um and hold us harmless for any damages that are caused by their signs. Now, you're welcome to sit there and postpone it to July 8th if you'd like to do so, but they are required. Well, those questions are are answered. I'm I'm a little concerned about, you know, again, how everything uh could proliferate, but I guess we'll deal with that. Um, after this it's fine with me to to withdraw the motion. So, our current license agreement we would enter into I I assume it's one you've used before, correct? Yes, sir. And it does have all these components, these terms for the uh that we've we've talked about here. It does have uh a basis in there, a cause or for which we could get out of the licensing agreement. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. All right. Um, I I think to Mr. Gashin's point, you know, if we make this with a particular organization to do that, it would be good if it was limited just to that organization's advertising and it couldn't be used by somebody else so we know who we're dealing with and what they're advertising. I know we can't control the content once we open it up, but I don't I assume we can't. Is that right, Mr. Wade? there there might be some things that we might be able to do as far as the content. It's not transferable, so they can't transfer it to another business, okay, or anyone else without our consent. So, um I mean, we certainly could look at that as a possibility if if that's something that y'all would like to add to the street use license. Are they are they required to give us an example of what the uh banner will look like? They are not in the current agreement. going to just specify street light banners are allowed. Okay. I mean, that might be a nice thing to have an attachment so at least you know what it looks like. I know we can't usually do much about the content, but still, you know, we know what they're going to put up in advance. We're talking about two different things here. Okay. So, one, this is where we're permitting somebody to use our property. The other one is just talking about regulating signs from a regulatory standpoint. So those are two those from a legal standpoint are two different things. We'll be we'll have a session sometime on how they are different. So all right. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Mayor Pro Tim. Also point out that those street banners also the city of Leach ourselves we also put um we do fourth on Broadway. We've done the Christmas parade. We've we've done a lot of different things. So, will we also be held accountable and to do that type of stuff? Because what we do and uh Brooke is here and can probably respond to this a little bit more accurately, but we have sponsors for those banners. So, are we going to limit who gets to put their name as a sponsor? I mean, there's a lot of things I think that need to be really looked at before we make a decision to just start dropping these or increasing fees because we ourselves are one of the the advertisers, if you will. So, I think I've gotten a little bit ahead of the game and so I think we do have a motion here. Do we not did we not have a motion? Did you pull it? Did you pull it? Okay. happy to put it back. Well, I'm just We do have a number of questions here and so u u I'm happy to entertain such a motion if there is one. Mr. Collins. Yeah. So, yeah, let's let's come back. I'd like to have some time to study this, allow staff to look into it. So, I would move that we postpone this decision uh date specific to July 22nd. Is that the correct meeting date? That's the That's the second meeting in July. You have one on July 8th, but you do have Jul 4th and and July 22nd. Is there a second? Mr. Rose seconds. Any discussion? Mr. Gosh, I know I opened this can of worms, so it's kind of my fault, but um I'm I'm okay with the the street use license as it's written. I would be happy to vote on it today and approve it today. Um, I think that the the costs are appropriate. It's covering the city's time and we have the gear we have the kind of the backup option of being able to withdraw from the street use agreement at any time with or without cause. And so if there was something wildly inappropriate about the way that they were using the banner signs, we could just come back and put it on the agenda and and withdraw from the agreement. So, um, it's kind of my fault for starting this discussion, but I'm okay with it with approving it today. Any further discussion? All right, we have a motion, a second. All in favor of the motion to postpone consideration of item 6.7 until July 22nd. Please let it be known by saying I. I. All posted say nay. Nay. Okay. to four to three was it? Okay. So, let's let's do Can you bring up the vote so I know how we voted here? So, let's vote again. All right. So, yes to approve the uh motion to postpone and no to not. Okay. So that that motion fails. All right. To 6.7. All right. And then is there any further discussion? We do have the motion in a second on that one. So any further discussion on 6.7. Do we do we have a motion in this? Okay. We have a motion to approve a motion. We have a second from Dr. Wilson. All right. All in favor, uh, we'll use the voting again this time. All in favor say yay. All right, that passes. All right, I'll now take up item 6.15. And uh please note for the record that Councilman Collins is recusing from participating in this item. I'll wait for him to leave. I'll now call on Well, I'm calling on city engineer John Turpin or Eric. Is it going to be you again on this one? M M Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'll I'll start on it and if you've got really hard questions, we'll get the expert. Thank you. So, Mayor and Council, item 615. This is an amendment to an existing engineering contract. This is for Milwaukee Avenue fourth to the north city limits. This is a 2022 bond project. The amendment is because when this project was designed, so I'm talking about the north limit of it, just north of the school. When the project was designed, the county was intending under their bond to pick up and continue moving north with expanding Milwaukee. The county is not going to be able to do that. So, we've got to fix just the tail end of our piece of the road design so it's not multiple lanes slamming into two, if that makes sense. It's about a $58,000 amendment. All right. Um, I guess first we need to take up a motion. Do we have a motion? You have a motion, Dr. Wilson. The motion second. Second. Uh, Mr. Koseen. Any discussion? I can't see on my screen here. If anybody's Can you bring up Okay. Thank you. All right. No discussion. All right. All in favor of uh 6.15, please let me know by saying I. I. Any oppose? Say nay. I hear none. All right. Uh, Miss Paws, would you go get Mr. bring it back in. Welcome back, Mr. Collins. Mr. Mr. Carter, Mr. Collins. The council will now take up regular agenda and start with item 7.1 uh zone case 1943E and item 17.2 zone case 1825- A. Without objection, the council will conduct a consolidated public hearing on these zoning cases. Do I hear any objection? Hear none. The council has already received in their packet the staff reports on the planning uh from the planning department and the recommendations of 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 also ask questions of the applicant at this time during the public hearing, but no discussion on the merits will be conducted by the council during the public hearing part. So, I now call on our director of planning, Kristen Sager, to provide a brief summary on each zoning case subject to the public hearing. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Item 7.1 is zone case 1943E in district 1. The applicant is AMD Engineering LLC request for a zone change from heavy commercial to medium density residential. We sent out 10 notifications receiving one in favor. The property is located south of North Loop 289 and west of Memphis Avenue. Here's the one response we did receive in favor. And here is an aerial view of the subject property. It is currently vacant and are existing multif family to the south, east, and northwest. Current zoning is heavy commercial. There is highdensity residential to the south and east, medium density residential to the east as well with additional highdensity residential to the northwest. Future land use plan designates this property for residential low density land uses. Here's some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. A graphic provided by the applicant showing the the subject property. The future land use map designation for residential low density is in conformance with the request for medium density residential and is appropriate at this location. The zone change is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area and existing uses. It is located south of North Loop 289 which is designated as a freeway and west of Memphis Avenue which is designated as a local street in this area by the master fair plan. 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. Are there any questions? Thank you, Miss Sager. Okay, I'll now open the public hearing on agenda items 7.1 and 7.2 2. Is anyone here today? Are you Oh, that's right. We got to do both of them, don't we? Sure. If you'd like for me to, I can. No, I would like for you to. 7.2 is zone case 1825A in district 2. The applicant is Keller Williams Commercial for Pinkies Incorporated. Request for zone change from neighborhood commercial and heavy commercial to auto urban commercial. We sent out 77 notifications receiving one in favor and one in opposition. This property is located north of 82nd east of University Avenue. Here are the two responses, one in favor, one in opposition. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There is existing commercial development to the south, west, and southeast with neighborhood to the northeast. Current zoning is neighborhood commercial and heavy commercial. There is additional neighborhood commercial, auto urban commercial and heavy commercial all along University and 82nd with low density single family SF2 and medium density residential to the northeast. Future land use plan designation is for commercial land uses. And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. Here's a graphic provided by the applicant showing what the proposed development could look like. The future land use map designation is for commercial land uses. This request is conforms to this designation and would be appropriate. It is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area. 82nd Street is designated as a principal arterial by the master thoroughare plan. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with the unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Are there any questions? Mr. Collins. So, I noticed that this request is being made uh on behalf of Pinkies. They are the current property owner. So, they're the Okay. So, we don't have um necessarily any intention that they're going to be the occupant. No, I based on the graphic provided by the applicant, I would assume it will be Bolton oil change. But that's an assumption on all of our part. Would it require any additional permitting if if it were utilized for uh their their normal uh line of business? A package store would be a permitted use in this district. Okay. Thank you. I believe it on that particular is a representative here for this particular um yes the applicant is here. Who is it? Uh Jeremy. Oh hey Jeremy. Um so we do know that it is a Bolton's. Can you confirm that for us? Yes, ma'am. The intended uses of Boltons and also this property is heavily deed restricted and liquor stores are not allowed there. Okay. And I've seen the other Bolton's coming up on Indiana. It's looking great. So, I can only imagine. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay, I see that. Thank you, Miss Aer. All right. I'll now open the public hearing. Try one more time on agenda item 7.1 7.2. Is there anyone here wishing to speak uh in favor of either or both of these zoning cases? Good afternoon, council. My name is Will Stevens with AMD Engineering at 651568 Street. I just wanted to make myself available on item 7.1 if you have any questions. Are there any questions for Will? Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. Ste. Jeremy Steen 10210 Quaker Avenue. I just wanted to see if there's any other questions or context I can provide for this. Any questions for Mr. Ste? All right. Thank you. Is anyone here today wishing to speak in opposition to either of these items or both? Anyone in opposition? All right, I will now close the public hearing at uh 250. Is there a motion to approve items uh agenda items 7.1 and 7.2? I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on these items? I see none. All in favor, please let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. The motion passes unanimously. All right, the council will now take up item 7.3. And again, I will call on Miss Seager to provide a briefing on this item. Thank you. Item 7.3 is a resolution to consider a variance for the property located at 313534th Street. Pub 55 would like to open a restaurant in this location with a TABC license for mixed beverage. the um they are within the 300 foot separation requirement from Mrs. O's daycare. They did receive a letter signed by the director of Mrs. O's, Sylvia Hernandez, um which I can provide to you. The letter states they are in support of the variance request. As a reminder, this request is not only for mixed beverage but mixed beverage late hours. It was denied by city council at your June 10th meeting. However, there have been other approved variances on this property. At this location, 313534th. In 2019, Woody's Brick Oven Pizza and Grill received a variance to have a BG license. Next door at 313134th, Viso's African Bar and Restaurant in 2022 received a variance for a mixed beverage license. And at 312134th in 2022, Frost Brew House received a variance for a BG and BP license. With that, I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Are there any questions? Mr. Collins. Miss Sager, if you would go back a couple of slides. So this particular location is within 300 feet of the daycare, but it's also within 300 feet of Young Life's church facility. This map is a little misleading because the separation from schools and daycarees are measured property lineto property line. The separation from churches and hospitals is doortodoor while traveling along the legal pedestrian path. So in that instance, they meet the 300 foot separation from the church. They are within So they're not within the 300t. Correct. Because it's not measured based on property line as the map shows. It's doortodoor. But if it were property line, then they would be well within that 300 ft of this church. Correct. Okay. Mayor Proel, if possible, I'd like to ask the applicant some questions, please. They're here. How are you? I'm Zach Kundiger. Um 3208 33rd Street and I'm just I'm the applicant for uh 7.13 or 7.3. Thank you for being here. First question is the name of the business a little misleading? I thought it was going to be a bar, but it is going to be a restaurant. It's a sports grill and lounge. So, it's a it's a bar and a restaurant. Yes. Okay. And my last question to you at the last meeting, I asked you if Mrs. O if you had spoken with them. And I've spoken to her multiple times now. Yes. And she's she's all for it. She's wants she wants all the businesses in the area. She and that letter was from her and her director. She said she told me to get she's not in town, so she told me to go up there and have the director sign it. So, what's signed there is the director. Okay. And the staff I talked to the staff too and they're really all for it too. They said they loved Woody's there and they just want some more food in the area. So So what are your business hours going to be? Because I know I think I heard some extended hours. Uh just 11 to 2. Um I mean probably I mean earlier than two if it's slow like during summertime. Um I mean I work at Capital and we have a liquor license till 2, but we kind of 12 is about whenever we close. So but two two is whenever we would say yeah. So 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. to 2 a.m. 2 a.m. 2 a.m. So 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. 2 a.m. Yes. So your hours are from 11:00 p.m. to 2 a.m. 11:00 a.m. to 2 2 a.m. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I just want to Sorry. No, I was listen. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Very good. I don't have any questions. Do you have anything that you want us to know? I mean the floor is yours if you want to because we had a lot of concerns. I mean right across the only thing I'm kind of just confused there's like a liquor store that just opened across the street and then there's OAR like right there too that are feel like are almost even closer to I don't know about their distance and everything. I didn't go and measure but compared to and and right next to us is Vizos and they're also closer. Those are just the only questions I have is why more so. Those are good points. I appreciate it. Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Harris? Yes. I just want to make a statement, too. I'm glad and proud that you're trying to attempt to bring this business to that location. Anything to make this city better, I'm for it. So, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I'll now entertain a motion to approve item 7.3. 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 oppose? Say nay. I think I heard two nays. Two. So, so the motion passes. Uh, five to two. All right. So having exhausted all items on our agenda, this meeting is now adjourned. [Music] [Music]