City Council - Regular Meeting

less entertaining than parks and wreck on TV. So, uh, tonight we are going to start off with a pledge of allegiance by the US flag led by me. We will then, uh, go to the Texas pledge led by Parks and Recreations Director James Grant. Um, we will then have the invitation led by Council Member Daniel Booker. Please write. 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 allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.

God, we thank you for today. We thank you for fellowship, time together, um deliberation of uh uh city business in front of uh these people here with us. And we just pray uh um again, we thank you for weather, rain, um a little bit of heat. We also pray that these upcoming storms uh um pray for calm and peace and uh safety of our first responders and citizens. And we just pray that you lead, guide us, and direct us tonight um in our deliberations and all that we do here. And let it be glorifying uh and to your will. God, we love you. We thank you for your son on the cross and this is his end pray. Amen.

We will call the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Um the first item after the call to order is public comments. If anyone wishes to address the council on any item that's not on the agenda and something that is under our authority to influence, you may do so. Again, typically in public comments, um uh we have some meeting. We also have this time. So, if you were here to talk about something, uh I do not have anybody that signed up for this um this section of the public comments. Um but anyone wishes to address the council, they may do so. if not also for for just for the record uh since our our neighbors across the way had a long meeting then went till 2 am because they didn't state on up front I I will I will I will uh restate our policy is a three minute uh per person and we will keep a timer so if you want to insult me minutes you're welcome to do so somewhere else but not in the council meeting so anyway just just FYI three minutes on our on our and I will make sure I I make sure that that's stated every time. So, um we will have probably three or four public hearings. Uh and I'll bring those up when we come to them. Item three on the agenda is uh adopting the minutes of the April 14th uh council meeting. The chair would motion to do that.

So move second. Motion a second to adopt the minutes for our April 14th meeting. Any comments or questions? All in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Passes 6. Item four is um planning and zoning. uh the public hearing and consider a zoning change from actual to planned development retail on approximately 1 acre located at 5209 West US Highway 190 Service Road. Miss Tina, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The applicant has requested that this item fund it to a future item. So move second.

We have a motion and a second to postpone this to a future uh meeting. No date specified. Any comments or questions? All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. All right. So we get to postpone the public hearing and the zoning change. Item five is hold a public hearing and consider a zoning change from agricultural to plan development retail on approximately 10 located at 2932 FM1670. Again, Miss T.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This property is located off of FM1670. It is south of the auction barn intersection. The applicant um property was annexed back in November 2004 and it was zoned a upon annexation that is proposing new manufactured home on the site and um that required a zoning change to be able to get that done. Um the family um the applicant and family members currently reside at that location. Um again the proposal is to purchase a new manufactured home approximately 21 sore feet and convert an existing home into a storage. Um on-site sewage facility is proposed at this location which will require approval of county health department. Um this is on our future land use map as a commercial retail um site and this is in the Dog Ridge CCN city of Belton sewer um CCN. However, we don't have sewer lines over here. The planning and commission heard this item at their last meeting and recommended approval of the zoning change with the following condition. Development must comply with all applicable standards of the retail zoning district. A new HUD code manufacturer home with a permanent foundation is permitted. A future subdivision plat is required for future additions and building. Future commercial uses must provide not limited to a site plan with details on proposed use, access, parking requirements, and building plans. um applicant is here should you have any questions for her and I will also be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Miss Gina. So, this being a public hearing, we'll let you guys speak first. So, we will um close the council deliberations and open the floor if anyone wishes to speak in favor or against this item. This is your time to take your three minutes. Ready on your second go. Um, name it

Laura LeBlanc 2632 FM1670 Belton. Um, I am currently residing with my parents on one side of that circle driveway you saw there. The prop new home is on the other side. It is one single plot of land, the 9.9 whatever acres, but when we purchased it, it already had two separate street addresses. I don't know how that happened, but um my mother and father are going to stay in their residence and I'm moving into new manufactured home on the other side. Um the one we are turning into storage was the one I used to reside in, a single wide manufactured home, but um it's being used as storage. my late son's belongings and every time I try to get through that um it it hasn't happened yet. Um so I would ask that y'all allow that to remain for storage. Um I promise we're not trying to build a a FEMA city or anything. It's just I need it for the storage of his furniture and belongings.

Yeah. Sorry for your loss. I know it's a hard thing to process and time time time will heal. Um, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak in favor or against this agenda item? There being none, we will close the floor and reconvene to discuss any um discuss this. Any comments or questions for Tina or the chair would entertain a motion. A motion to approve agenda. Second. We have a motion and second to approve um the agenda item. Uh any comments or questions before we vote?

The only question and I think it all got answered is since it was already multiple homes, now that we're doing the plan development, we don't require platting unless it's done again and then we'll have to plat and divide it. Correct. Um there is a stipulation that allows for one main home after annexation to be installed. So that's what it's being applied. So any future additions will require the subdivision platform. All right. All right. All in favor say I. I.

Those opposed. All right. Passes. Uh 6. All right. Item six. Uh consider amending a PL the Avenue R subdivision amending plat number one comprising 7979 acres located at the north side of East Avenue R between Wall Street and Miller Street. Stina.

And thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a followup for our zoning case heard um late last year um for the Avenue R subdivision. This property is located on the east side of 35 and it is south of FM436 or Holland Road. Um the applicant is proposing eight lots or is remending the plat for the eight lots that's currently there. The major amendments are the location of the setbacks with our uh previous appro. We allowed a 15t um front yard setback, 15t rear yard setback, actually 20 and a five foot sideyard setback for this area. Um the area in blue is a shared access that's shared between the front property and the rear property. It's a 20 foot shared um access easement for the properties. Um another amendment that was is at the back of the property um at the rear lots. There was a 15t utility easement that the city needed for sewer lines that are currently existing there. Another minor addition was a relocation of another easement that's located between the front and the rear yard. um car constructed in there and the applicant was able to relocate the utilities meant to a more accurate location. Um the utilities companies have looked at this and have approved that. Um so zoning, this is a planned development. Water and sewer are provided by the city. Streets is off of an existing um avenue. No improvements are required and parkland dedication fees have been paid for this plot. Um staff is recommending approval. This is actually done as a minister that allows for Senate um city staff to approve. It does not require planning and zoning commission, but it's being brought back to you because at your request for the zoning change.

All right. Thank you, Tina. All right. Um there being no public hearing, uh anybody have any comments or questions or the chair would entertain a motion on this plat. I'm sorry. This is not a public hearing. I'm sorry. Yeah, this is just an administrative plat. Yes. Apologies.

I'll make a motion to present. I know this was one or to approve, not present. Approve as presented. Um, so is one that we asked for. I'm glad to see it's finally getting behind us on this one. We have a motion second to approve the plat as presented. Any other comments or questions before we vote? All in favor say I. I. Those opposed passes unanimously. So, we are now platted. So y'all are in the clear. All right. Item seven is hold a public hearing again. 3 minutes public hearing and consider ordinance amending chapter 11 article 9 of the code of ordinances related to short-term rentals. Mr. Bob.

Thank you sir. I appreciate that very much. Um back in January we brought some items to you relating to the enforcement of short-term rentals uh as well as some ideas in terms of the administration. After that meeting, we we received some direction for the short-term committee rental committee to get together to talk about some of the other items that we're going to discuss here. Uh, Councilman Oan, Councilman Booker, and and Council Coington were on that committee along with some other city staff. So, we were able to uh discuss those items and we have forwarded these particular recommendations to you. Uh the first one is to allow up to two STR units per lot and up to 10% of the units whichever is greater mostly with duplex and multif family to eliminate the difference between owner and non-owner uh occupied STRs to reduce the distance between STRs from 500 to 100 ft and to eliminate distance requirements in the imagined Belton zone except for the neighborhood uh zone as well in that area. So, just to touch on these things, um, and members of the committee, if y'all have any insights or or comments, feel free to, uh, uh, to jump in. Um, issue, a multif family duplex is not addressed by the ordinance. So, uh, we asked the committee to consider this. After looking at some other towns, we figured out that uh in some area other areas, they would allow up to two units per lot or 10% of the units, whichever is greater. Uh and then uh as part of the approval process, the property owner has to weigh in on that. Um and so just kind of an example of that is as y'all might remember the uh the cases on Spark Street where uh the one on the south was able to get a variance from the council. So there's a duplex on either side. So in this particular case, we've got two two STRs on that one duplex. And if the

distance requirements either 500, uh the others would not be eligible for STRs. Uh do you all have any comments to add to that or members of the committee include average average lot size? Would you say throughout the city? Yeah. Oh, I would 100 feet. Is that every other house or is that every

I think I think so. I think so. Uh, we've got an exhibit in there kind of give you an idea what it may look like. So, that's okay. We'll just kind of park it for a minute. Uh, the non-owner STRs versus the owner STRs. Now, we're suggesting that we eliminate the distinction between the two because at first we thought that there was um, you know, if if we had an owner occupied STR, they might be on site when somebody rents the place. there's a certain amount of supervision to the whole the whole situation in in in the vast majority of cases that's not the case and so uh there's really no reason for that distinction to exist u we're coming up on that u any thoughts things to add or anything like that I want to give you the opportunity to speak because I don't want to like um you know take uh take it from here anyway so the next one is the u the 500 foot down to the 100 But um and uh that essentially is um you know kind of based on our experience to some extent that they're you know because we originally started out with the um uh the non-clustering aspect in the neighborhoods and things like that and so we really haven't experienced a lot that would give some concern um about the separations. Um and so the suggest uh reduce it to 100 ft. Uh do you all have any other thoughts about that in terms of this particular item?

Possibly every other house because it didn't have measurement line to property property line to property line. Yes, sir. Uh so I have an example here. This is the 500 foot radius. We picked one up on 14th Street. And so you see about 20 lots in that uh that radius. Uh if if if you want to consider that 100 foot, then it drops down to about 8 10 lots or so. So we have that uh that area but you can logically see that there will be more on that street.

I guess my biggest concern with reduction to the 100 foot radius is uh of parking and uh from what I've seen or experienced most of the if you're doing a short-term rental everybody's driving their own car place. Um, sure. And that's where we I think we had some problems or issues maybe on Summit or Estate somewhere in that area with parking all up and down the street. Um, I kind of like the 500t rule because you could basically eliminate a street full of short-term rentals and just avoid a lot of issues or difficulties. So, I'm concerned about reducing that.

Yes, sir. Um, again, I don't want to steal y'all's thunder. If you have any input on this, feel free to chime in. I'm I'm happy to take your input. If not, we'll move along. Um, the other uh recommendation was to eliminate the distances eliminate between the STRs in the imagined belt zone um with the exception of the neighborhood zone. And of course, I put 100 feet in there. You know, if you were to think, well, what's the distance u in the neighborhood zone? If you were to change it to 100 ft, then that would be the distance. If it remains at 500, then of course we stay at 500. So just to give you an idea what that, you know, the Imagine Belton, well, not an idea. You all know where the Imagine Belton zone is, it's uh along 14 up main street, the yellowish greenish color there, that's the neighborhood zone. So those would be excluded from the recommendation. And so um as we mentioned uh the the recommendation is to allow uh up to two per lot or a maximum of 10% whichever is greater you know eliminate the distinction between the owner non-owner occupied change the distance from 500 to 100 and to eliminate the distance requirements in the imagined belton zone course not including the neighborhood zone. So those are our our thoughts and as you mentioned earlier mayor this is a public hearing so it's okay with you I'll step back and let that happen.

Yep. That sounds good. Yeah, I do have one that signed up, but we don't have to limit it to one. If somebody else wants to speak about this, they can do so as as well. So, we will close our deliberations and open the floor public comments. Again, three minutes. We will keep the time um and let you keep the time, too. So, the first one I have is Dominica. So, um name and address for the record and then uh your three minute starts.

Okay. Dominica Gar short. Dominica Garza, 312 Mystic Mountain Lane, Belton, Texas. And I have my remarks timed at exactly 3 minutes, so we'll see how we do. So, good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here to oppose the recommendation to reduce the STR separation from 500 ft to 100 ft and to eliminate it in the imagine belt and zones. Quite honestly, this feels like dja vu. I understood this issue had already been in August 2025. city recommended removing the separation requirement and council chose not to. There were clear concerns about overconentration and the impact on neighborhoods and public safety. The direction was to keep the 500 ft separation. Then it came back up in January and now it's back up again tonight. At some point it feels like a pattern trying to decision that has already been made. The 500 ft separation was not arbitrary. It was put into place to prevent clustering and reduce impacts like noise, parking, congestion, trash, and safety concerns. Reducing that to 500 ft does not solve a problem. It removes the protection that residents currently rely on. Eliminating separation in redevelopment areas like the imagined belt and zones is even more concerning. Those are areas where we should maintain protections. Redevelopment areas should set the standard for thoughtful planning, not become testing grounds for reduced protections. There's also no clear justification for this change. Since the ordinance was adopted 3 years ago, there have only been three variances granted. That suggests the system is working, not that it needs overhaul. So the question is this, why are we changing it? The only rationale I'm hearing is enforcement and administrative convenience. So am I to understand that creating a manageable policy takes higher priority than protecting residents, property owners, and neighborhoods? The solution is enforcement, not rewriting the ordinance to make it easier to manage. When you weaken the standard, the impact

does not go away. It shifts the burden to residents. I can speak to that directly. Next to me, there are three STRs operating side by side. The result has been ongoing noise issues, parking problems, and even criminal activity. That is what happens when clustering is allowed. So, I'm asking you to stay consistent with your prior direction. Keep the 500 ft separation. Do not reduce it to 100 ft. Dominate it in imagine belt and zones and focus on enforcing the ordinance you already adopted. You establish the standard for a reason. Please stand by it and enforce it. Don't weaken it. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Does anyone else to speak in favor or in opposition to this? There being no one else from the floor, we will close the public hearing and reopen deliberations for the council. comments, questions or emotions?

I kind of 500 foot I think uh especially residing in the older established neighborhood. Um we do have some rentals next to us and of course they're not shortterm uh but the additional cars uh and lack of parking and whatnot. I just it would be difficult if we had a couple of short-term rentals next door or every other door down our street. Um, and the parking uh I think would be really really difficult to deal with for them. Uh, but I just think there needs to be some space. Miss Garza, thank you for the email that you sent previously and for your your clear and concise comments and for your personal experience. I agree with John that it doesn't seem to be broke if we've only had three times that we've had to consider it and all the time we've had it in place, it seems to be, but I haven't been part of the group. So, I'm going to let you guys comment on that, please.

I I would I was part of the group. I would say that um I do feel like the 500 foot uh spacing that we that was originally adopted by the council before I was on council um was arbitrary. I think that it was just a number plucked out of the out of the air. Um I think that the 100 foot spacing gives you some space for for street parking. I think that there's also other ordinances in place that uh protect the neighbors. We've got noise ordinances. We've got one of the examples was a a house where a bunch of teenagers threw a party and got drunk and threw up the house and turns out we've got a teenagers drinking and tearing up a house. So, I think we've got some other things in place that that we can enforce without adding the burdens to short-term rental ordin owners. Um, we have approved three variances. I think we've had variances requested. So, we've approved 100% of the variances that have been requested from us. Um, I think that I think that you tiptoe into uh property rights issues whenever you limit these things uh more than necessary. And so, I I I think the recommendations that came from the short-term rental committee are are good. Don't you think 100 feet is enough? I mean, it does keep that from happening. what you're what Miss Car

Well, in my neighborhood that'd be other every other house, right? And I think that's a little excessive. I don't think that 500 ft was arbitrary. I thought we'd look at other policies from other cities and that kind of follow on those guidelines. Um, and I don't know were the uh variances downtown, I believe, um, and not neighborhoods. Those were all in neighborhoods. The variances. Yes, sir. And so they were within 500 feet of each other was the variance. Yes. Yes. Were they within 100 feet of each other? No. No, they were not. So 100 feet would have solved all three of them. No.

Well, I don't know about, you know, it's kind of specific to those cases, but uh well, if you had a policy that was 100 feet, yeah, it would solve those problems. Yes, absolutely. I see what you're saying.

I just This one's tough for me because I always go back to is it fair for everyone involved? And especially when it comes to property rights, um what you set the number at 100, 500 or a th00and, what that makes it is to where the owner of a property can buy a permit and they automatically make it to where the property rights of their neighbor are affected because now they cannot do a short-term rental versus the person who does. Don't think that's fair. Uh, so in my mind, it should either all or nothing thing. Either you say everyone's allowed to do a short-term rental in a neighborhood or you say they're not. Um, but but I'm just not for a 500,000. I would rather see something tied to the type of zoning or to as as you were saying the actual, you know, imagine belting the different zones. Um, but but I just I I'll be honest with you. If if you set it at 500, I'm going to go buy a permanent and make sure that none of the people around me do a short-term rail because I don't want them next to me.

What if it's a 100? I'm going to buy a 100 foot one because I don't want them next to me. That's pretty loudly. Yeah. And so I would rather I say, you know, yes, you can do it in the um, you know, in the downtown, which I consider commercial areas. Those are commercial zones. But I would say we eliminate it for, you know, single family, you know, single family zoning or or everyone can. I I think those are the two options. I just don't think it's fair to to not give the same property rights to each each person.

I have the same I have a similar struggle. Mine revolves more around what the purpose is. I mean, I I I understand it. it's it's property rights. Um, but with the data we have that 99.9% of them are not inhabited by the owner. To me, it's a commercial. It's a commercial entity. I I don't know that the law supports or doesn't support me in that in that realm yet. Much like Uber drivers were indivctors, but now they're employees and and all these things that law hasn't legislature hasn't decided um to this point. So, I mean, there's a lot of struggles, property rights being one of them, but also if I if I were to liken the 500 ft to retail, would I feel comfortable saying retail couldn't go on one lot and not the next one? I would not because free market should dictate what businesses work and what don't. Um, so that's the tossup for me. uh being on this committee. I personally though to Dominica's point, whatever we decide tonight would like to not have an STR committee meeting for a while and just stick with it. And so I know we talk about people bringing zoning changes and doing prejudice. So if there's a way to do prejudice on some of this stuff, let's do it, right? Um but that that's that's the struggle for me. I don't I don't know where I land on the 500 to 100,000 realm. For me, it's more commercial entity versus residential entity. Um, and what some of those neighbors who now living next to commercial entities in theory going to deal with them. So, there's

and we don't have laws that govern uh trash and parking. I mean, there's there's no way to move a car from in front of my house. um Victor Park there on the public street. Um and I I just remember the the group that we had um that was their neighborhood was taken over by one or two short-term rentals and whether it was a a fishing tournament and five trucks with five boats and five the eight guys in the house um and the difficulty they had turning the corner to get home. um you know, just having several of those uh 100 ft apart um just seems a little excessive to me and and a burden on a neighborhood person.

I'm aware of the complaint on the on the state drive with the with the bass boats and the trailers. Um and then the the issue after summer fun adult the 19 year olds tore up the house on 13. Aside from that, I've not heard of any complaints, violations, anything like that related to STRs. This this feels in large part like we've got a solution and we're looking for a problem. Um I I think without justified it'sulation by the city, that's that's where I'm at. You know, I think, you know, when it comes to property rights and community regulations, I think that's where a lot of tension, especially in uh cities, I don't know, they want a data center versus people who don't want a data center um because they want to regulate some property that is not theirs, but they feel impacted by it. STRS is no different, like we're impacted. I will say overation uh leads to no regulation. when Austin basically was banning short-term rentals and Ubers and it making sure everything went through Austin City Council and Austin city government to make sure every person that's going to be driving a taxi is regulated by the city. It created a tension in Austin because you couldn't get a taxi in Austin. when Uber actually solved the problem, but the state legislature saw it and they saw the annexations being done by cities like Austin and they basically have taken away the ability of cities to regulate anything because some cities were overregulating. So, I'll say from that perspective, I understand that there's a tension between regulation and too much regulation and one leads to the other. Um, if there's no regulation, then we tend to overregulate. When there's overregulation, we tend to remove it. When I just look at this, this seems like it's moderating regulation to be reasonable. Uh whether

it's 100, 250, kind of the thousand, whatever it is, it it seems a reasonable approach because we've the the issues that we've had are not in the density. It has to do really with one or two, not 25 of them at a time. So, I I'm kind of in the um could vote either way, honestly. It doesn't affect my life um other than at a council meeting, but my own personal life, I'm not really affected. I think the downtown zone with our vision of what we want, I would expect to have a higher concentration of rentals downtown.

Um so I think that that's reasonable that you can Hey, if if we got three buildings downtown that have upstairs that all three of them are, I don't think that affects anybody. Uh, I I really like the the statement that that one of you guys made on a zoning. Um, I think if you are going to turn your house into a hotel, you should get a residential commercial zoning for rentals and then get the notices go out to the neighbors, whether you're 100 feet or 1,000 ft, and let the people in the neighborhood voice their opinion. Right now, they just start renting and there's no regulation. And so I think we're still in this bubble of technology out the government and I think we're having to catch up. And so for those that are here in attendance, we hired a firm to go out and find the short-term rentals because they're supposed to pay for hotel motel tax. So they're taking residential space away from the hotels. They're losing revenue going to that and then we're losing the revenue of the tax that that comes with that. So in doing that, we found a lot of people that are not reporting. They're not self-reporting. And some of these are within 100 feet each other. And I think one of the things is in my personal view, I think we should get people to register first regardless of where they are. And so if it means that we give them a, you know, you you get a get out of jail free card if you register. We don't we're not going to we're grandfather you into these, but going forward we need to follow these regulations. We we're still trying to catch up. So to Dave's point, I think we're trying to catch up. We don't have enough data to really know which regulations are bad. So I that's a lot of stuff to just talk around the regulation process. But as far as I'm concerned, I like I like the two or 10% that solves the issue with the duplexes. I like the

elimination of non-owner versus owner occupied because most owner occupied they're in Colorado and people are renting. They're not here. Um, I like the eliminating the distance requirement in the imagine belt and zones that that downtown area. I like that. Um, I'm coin toss on number three. Um, that's in the words of John Messer. I'll say one more thing and then I'll shut up.

This this is this is not an issue for me where I'm, you know, like a dog with a bone that I'm not going to let it go. I'm just expressing my thoughts on the issue. Vote it up or vote it down. I'm not gonna lose any sleep tonight. Um, I think that this whole conversation is about making progress. We started several years ago with with no ordinance about this and we came up with one and I think this is just about refining it and making it better. In the interest of progress, John, would you feel better if it was instead of 100 feet if it was 200 feet? I mean, could you get on board with something like that? I to be I really like the 500. And part of that is because I'm in an area that doesn't have an HOA. We don't have any help or support and it's just an established neighborhood. And so I just worry that as we go through transition, you know, some folks may say, "Hey, that's a great short-term rental. We can come go to football games and do Mary Hart and Baylor stuff and go downtown." Um, and I just worry about that. Um, we like neighbors and owners and honestly famous with kids and don't want to have to fight all that and that's all a lot personal but I like a neighborhood and we our little town has tried to communicate uh uh uh you know appease the need for these um and it seemed like they fit a lot better downtown u and uh we're trying to still track them down um in neighborhoods and get them to pay the fees. Um, I'm just I worry about uh an area being overrun with short-term rentals and it's impacting the regular folks living there.

What's our enforcement? Let's say we we have the people that have not registered with the city. They're not submitting their taxes to the city. They're still renting on whatever the app that they signed up. What's Okay, let's say they're a frequent offender. What do What do we do? I mean, in terms of uh like ex like parking and trash and things like that. Let's say somebody offended. They're they're an offender. They they're doing something. Whatever our ordinance is, they're not following the ordinance. Right. What do we do? They're operating an Airbnb without a permit. That's correct. Or they're or they're within 100 feet of somebody else and they want to register, but then but then we say, "Oh, well, you can't register because somebody's already registered, so you can't." And so they continue to do it.

Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. the case where somebody's within 100 feet, we're going to encourage them to register, but then we'd have to come to the council ask you to give them that variance and then we can start, you know, getting in the system and have them pay their taxes and things like that. They're still going to pay their taxes because we know that, you know, possibly they were there for a couple of years prior to. Have we taken anybody to court yet? No, sir. Have we threatened to take anybody to court yet? I think our last letter was pretty firm, but uh you know, we're doing this compassionate compliance aspect. So, you know, we give people plenty of latitude to make the decision to come into the system. So, but we're getting close.

Mayor, mayor, the short answer is is um yes, we've sent out letters. Um the next step um would then be and we've identified those um locations that are not registered um are permitted. And then so the next step would be taking those filing a citation and taking those um folks to court. Okay. I think the key is is we have to enforce our regulations for them to mean anything or our debate really means nothing because people would register and do that online. Yep. Yep. Any other comments or questions?

I'm just wondering if have y'all seen or anyone have any ideas of I'm kind of similar. I'm on board with one, two, and four, but number three, I just really don't like it from the fact of my neighbor affects my property rights. Have Have you seen people do or cities have a percent where you say only a percent of a neighborhood can be short-term rentals? We haven't seen anything like that in the research that we've done. Um, now, you know, we haven't surveyed everybody, uh, but we're typically seeing a a distance like 500 feet, 100 feet, 1,000 ft, that kind of thing. The percentages are mostly on the multif family u uh side of things. So, that doesn't help you any, but that's kind of where we're at on the research. Would there be a way to enfor you did say in theory only 10% of a block can be um can be a short-term rental. Is there a way to monitor that and enforce that?

We can find a way to do this. Um and then you're going to have to draw lines throughout the city to say where one neighborhood starts and ends. Well, I would just do by block the block. That's a lot that's a lot more work than the 500 feet. But if that's where we land, that's that's where we go.

I truly feel that my neighbors walked the streets and talked to everybody and said, "Hey, we have this uh ordinance change and are you good with a 100 ft versus 500 ft from your property for rental?" I think consensus was oh 500 ft please. I'd rather not have those on either side of me. That's difficult for me in the middle. Just I'm going to go ahead and throw a wrench here. I'm going to make a motion. Hey, before you do that, cut us up into four motions.

Yeah. Will you make any Yeah. As long as it's uh regarding this ordinance, you can make a motion. Read whatever is want. 1 four. Great. I think I think I'll make a motion to my motion specifically is going to involve recommendations one, two, and four. I make a motion to approve recommendations one, two, and four. Second. We have a motion, a second to amend chapter 11, article 9 of the code ordinances related to short-term rentals for items 1, 2, and four being allowing up to two STRs per lot or 10%, whichever is greater. eliminate the distinction between non-owner and owner occupied STRs and eliminate the distance requirements in the imagined belt and zones.

Any comments or questions before we vote? All in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed. Right. Passes 6. That mean whatever it said if it said 500 in there, we did not amend it. So that's that's takes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Civil discourse. You want to approve the other one? Could I make a motion to approve number three? now. Yeah, just address that separately. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, I make a motion to approve number three. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Motion dies for the lack of a second. All right, yeah, that's good.

Thanks for the effort to appreciate. Appreciate it. Um, all right. Item eight is consider a petition to recognize the police uh Belton Police Officers Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the eligible employees of the police department and meet and confer negotiations with the city of Belton. It looks like we do have a handful of those employees and in the house tonight. So, welcome.

Thank you, mayor and council. on the 9th of April received a petition uh asking to recognize the Belton Police Officers Association as the sole bargaining agent for meet and confer uh with eligible police department employees. Um we reviewed their petition. We reviewed the the membership list as well as eligible employees um HR data to make sure that each one that was eligible they had 100% support. They have to have 50% plus one be recognized. So there are three steps that the um council can take. One is to grant them recognition. Another is to defer recognition of the association and order an election of the municipality um on whether or not the city of Beltton may meet and confer with the Belton Police Officers Association or they can defer recognition of the association and order a certification election within the association. Um staff is recommending that the council go ahead and recognize Belton Police Officers Association as the sole bargaining uh unit for the Belton Police Department. I as you've there are representatives here and I believe that they have a statement they would like to make.

All right. Um any questions from the council? All right. All right. If you have a statement, it doesn't say public hearing, but since you guys are presenting the petition, I think that probably is fair to do that. Uh name and address for the record. And Richard Spurgeon, uh 19 Ridgewood.

Uh mayor, members of the council, um we thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Uh my name is Richard Spurgeon. Uh by day I'm a police captain. By night, I serve as the inaugural president of the Beldin Police Officers Association. Uh this follows the established process under Texas local government code chapter 142. The association as she already said uh the association submitted it petition on April 9th. The city conducted full verification and the results speak for themselves. That level of consensus is not common in this political landscape. It reflects a unified police department that is asking for one thing, a clear, structured, and professional way to communicate with the city on matters that directly impact our ability to serve. Recognition is that first step in that process. It does not obligate the city to any contract terms and it does not limit the authority of this council. Any meet and confer agreement would have to come back to you for your full consideration. What recognition does is provide a framework, one that promotes transparency, consistency, and accountability on both sides. It allows the city and its police officers to engage in good faith discussions about wages, benefits, working conditions, and policies in a way that is organized and productive. This is about building a stronger department. It is about improving communication, supporting retention and recruitment, and ensuring that the officers serving this community have a professional voice in the process. All while maintaining the city oversight. City has reviewed this petition, verified its validity and recommended approval. We are simply asking you to adopt this recommendation and formally recognize the Belton Police Officers Association to represent these men and women in building a brighter future for the city department. On behalf of our members, I want to thank you for your time, your consideration, and your continued support for the men and women of the Belton Police Department. We respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Here would entertain a motion. I move to grant recognition to the Belton Police Officer Association. Second. A motion. Second to grant recognition based on the petition and request. Any comments or questions before we vote?

Um I I will say this. Um, if you watch the 60 Minutes interview of former senator and former uh president of the University of Florida, Florida, Dr. Sass or Mr. Sass, depending on how you do it. Um, go watch that. It's an individual. He's 54 years old. Um, he uh I think his economics um degree from Harvard uh followed by a PhD in I think um history from Yale. He served seven years uh in the Senate before he uh retired from the Senate to take over as the president of the University of Florida. He was diagnosed in December with stage four pancreatic cancer. And he talked about what is wrong with this country. And he talks about civil discourse and that reasonable people can come in and have a conversation and sometimes walk away and say, "You know what? I think I changed my mind." and he talks about his his life and his life in public service and he and the qu the bold question is the everything that's going on in Washington is that what's wrong with our country and he says he says I think that what's going on in Washington and the administration is a reflection of what's happening in our neighborhoods it's not the other way around and I think being able to come and discuss and have discourse and not agree in a community like Belton of 25 ish thousand or so. Um, it's a great place to live. It's a great place to serve. We don't always see eye to eye, but we're still our neighbors. And so, I would, if you've not watched it, watch it. Watch the extended one. It's 40 minutes. It's worth every minute. Um, it will it will make you a believer in humanity. So, again, I just wanted to say that in this, you know, it bothers me. I think anytime that anybody signs a petition, again, people our neighbors across the way are dealing with a petition on a recall because they didn't

get a vote they like that just that's I think that's a breakdown in discourse. But I think in this petition, it's it's it's the way the process works and it is the process. So again, I appreciate guys and gals that are here. I appreciate what you guys stand for. Uh we are your partners. Um and we're partners with citizens. We we are hired and fired by election every two years. And so or three years now. Three years. I've been there too long. So anyway, any other comments or questions?

I do want to say I hope uh everybody on the police force realize uh we're volunteers and we volunteer because we love our city. Um uh we love the community. We love police and fire. Um and uh police is a big of why our little bitty community of 25,000 is successful. And so I feel like we've always been in your corner. Um hopefully you don't see us as adversarial. Um and uh we truly truly appreciate you guys. And so uh we'll go into this with an open mind. Um it's getting close to budget time so timing is probably not the best. Uh but we're all ears and willing to listen. And uh I wish there was a different way we could have gotten together other than this, but uh we're committed, you know, we were committed to uh fire, then we'll be committed to you. And just know that uh we're limited by budget constraints. Um and a penny on our tax role equates to about 240,000.

Yeah. 240,000. Um and we have to the taxpayer and say um here's your tax rate on your uh appraised property. Uh and we hope you see the value in this. Um and we've been very very frugal, efficient, and conscious of the taxpayers's role in this and trying to appease fire, police, um and all the employees of the city. And I think we've done an amazing job over the last few years in terms of of benefits comp um and trying to honestly keep everybody focused on the same thing and that's taking care of the citizens. So just wanted to say that.

All right. Motion and we have a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed. All right. That concludes our meeting. We stand adjourned at 6:18 p.m.