City Council - Regular Meeting

¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶

Thank you.

Good evening. We'd like to welcome everyone to our pre-council meeting here on July 7th. What an awesome celebration we had for America's 200th Thank you for everything. I mean, I've gotten nothing but great feedback. So I just wanted you guys to hear that. I sent you a message on the side. All right. Well, as always, we'll discuss and review the agenda items. We have a healthy work session, so we'll kind of get through this quickly. Indication. Proclamation. Proclamation. Consent, approval of the minutes for the June 16th regular city council meeting, F1. F2 is approval of the minutes for the work session on June 19th. F3, approval of the minutes for June 23rd special city council meeting. Any questions on the minutes? Nope. All right. F4, consider a resolution approving the termination of a street use license agreement.

So I was just curious why it was separated from the other item.

So this is a recommendation from Stan. It was a little unusual the way this was done back in the 80s. Right now, if you plat and dedicate right away, it's all done in that platting process. This one had the plat dedication, and then it also had the separate street use license agreement, which is not even a thing we use anymore. So we felt like for the property owner to have all clear title, terminate the agreement and then also abandon it on the flat.

You good with that? I'm good. Okay. Good question. I think they did that on purpose. I think they got us a F5. Consider a resolution adopting the City of Keller Title VI non-discrimination plan. I think this one... IT'S MAINLY ON HERE BECAUSE OF TEXTA, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO WE CAN APPLY FOR GRANTS. THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE. MARSHA TOOK THE LEAD ON THAT. SHE CAN PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS IF YOU NEED ON THAT.

ANY QUESTIONS ON F5? HOW ARE YOU, GREG? I LIKE THAT WATCH, MAN. F6, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL ASSISTANT office. Any questions on F6?

I had a question just because it jumped out at me. Usually they say authorizing the city manager to execute the agreement. This one says the mayor. Why is the...

It's a requirement of Tarrant County because the mayor is head of emergency management. Oh lord. Yeah so now if you remember correctly if we're in that he then quickly designates it over to the fire chief. Very quickly. Yeah.

Record speed this time, actually. I just noticed the distinction, and I was like, I wonder why that is. Yeah, but that was a requirement of a tariff counter.

All right. All right. F7, good question. So F7, consider a resolution authorizing the purchase and installation of an air compressor. Any questions on F7? All right, old business. G1, consider a resolution approving a supplement to the public highway at Great Crossing agreement with Union Pacific. We've seen this one before, at least most of us have. Any updates on that one?

Final costs came in about what we expected them to be, and then we'll take the funding from our... We issued this debt in 18, so it's been accruing interest, so we'll do it as part of it. So that way it's not coming from the general fund.

Not to say I'm not in favor of passing this. Do we have any wiggle room when we're negotiating those contracts moving forward where you're just going to pay whatever we say you're going to pay at some point in the future? That's basically it.

Also, too, I think whether or not we enter into the agreement, that's probably a key decision. What's your point, Councilman? pretty one-sided contract.

All roads and electric. Yeah. And keep in mind, this one's also unique in that it was also a partnership with Fort Worth, which as they went through their process, again, we issued the debt for this in 18, expecting that project to kick off. And it took me a long time for that to get there. So there's been a while waiting for them to wrap this project up. So I think most intersections at Keller as it relates to UP, or at least within, both sides are ours.

So we've got the lower number.

but at one point they were I think they were there was an estimate in the 120s it was higher at one time as part of our discussion but we this is this is where we ended up but they did and they did but well you don't necessarily see on paper they did provide a little bit of flexibility with us and gave us some saving at some of those costs because I think the full construction did they remember what they They helped us out a little with some of the concrete costs and the height of that.

Right.

So the street, normally it's 100% covered by the members or whatever city is in that. Their contribution was covering 50% of the street costs. And even though that street cost went higher than we thought because of the elevation changes of the roadway they still honored their 50 and so that's why beyond what we were able to do they were lucky to do anything more than already contribute what they had okay thank you

question I mean in all seriousness for me it just kind of makes me really extra incentivized to read the contracts we enter into because this was so one-sided it's take it or leave it and if we don't accept it and we'll probably end up and read carefully. G2, consider an ordinance approving an SUP for Amazing Hair Salon. It's also old business. Anyone have any questions on that one?

Sarah, the pictures look like they've renovated the building since the last time it was here.

Right, they painted it, and then they also, and we've got some before, oh my gosh, I'm playing musical instruments right now. They painted the front and the sides of the building, including that brown porch area at the very front, and then they also added some pavers. There were some comments from council at the May meeting about you kind of had to go through the grass to get to the front of the building, so they did finish out the pavers all the way to the sidewalk in front of the parking lot.

Do they take any, do they look into our other recommendation about experiential business that might fit with the surrounding businesses at all?

Not that I'm aware of. Okay. She was sticking with the tenant that she's proposing. Okay.

All right. Good question. We'll be here tonight. Anything? Good. G3, consider a planned development. single family 36 000 to single family 15 000 square foot lots any questions on g3 that's this is a good you know if you have uh sometimes i get like last minute questions that just kind of like it's like a thought bubble um staff if you want to research anything else a good time to ask so your last email is the total opposition and in favor have you sent us an email

Yes, there was one other that I forwarded you, some correspondence with Mayor McMullen and I think a Mr. Farrier on Homestead Drive that he ended up saying he would be in favor of the development. There were several properties where we got sometimes two or three Emails nothing that was opposing within the same property, but we might have gotten four letters of support from one property We generally counted that as one so but the so that the support count may be about approximate But certainly anything within the buffer is you know hard numbers Thank you for filling questions.

Thank you Okay G4, it's related to G3. It's a resolution approving a future land use plan amendment. Any questions on G4? H1, consider a resolution approving a final plat for the slot in the Burbank addition subdivision. Any questions on H1? Hearing none, H2, it's an SEP for 2,385 square foot accessory structure. Address at 1920 Winter Drive. John Atwood, applicant. Any questions on H2? All right, H3, it's a public hearing. Consider a resolution approving a final plot with variances for lots one, two, and three of the Hill family addition. Address 600 Normal Lane. David Lewis is the applicant. Cody Hill, the owner. Any questions on H3? H-4, also a public hearing, considered. Keaton, you're gonna have a lot of speaking opportunities tonight if you want them, but. H-4, considered an ordinance approving an SUP to allow office space in excess of 1,200 square feet. First floor, an OTK at 118 West Olive Street. James Henderson is the applicant. Bluegrass Legacy Holdings is the owner. And then relatedly, if you guys have questions on this, it's not the same item, obviously, but H-5 is a 380 agreement with, Bluegrass Legacy Group for a facade improvement grant.

The amount he's requesting, that's pretty typical, isn't it? It's the maximum, $10,000.

And based on this, they're more than matching on their own side? Yes, sir.

We talked about that when they sent

age six consider a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a franchise agreement with community waste disposal beginning september 1st 2026 and terminating august 31st 2031 so five-year agreement anyone have an option too we knew that on the five-year if needed so doesn't keller usually play a game where we always guess who's going to be here at the end of the agreement still yeah like what city council is going to i'm just joking sorry bad joke um H7, consider an ordinance amending the City of Keller Code of Ordinance by amending City Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services. Basically, we have to amend our ordinance in order to enter into this agreement. Right? Yes, sir. H7, any questions?

I do have one question on H8. I think H8. Yeah. The one MTE that they want to add, was this for 2023? I didn't see the one FTE on the subsequent years. Is that somehow baked in another way?

So if you go through the slide, you'll see it. In the administrative cost, current year it's about $47,000. We made it $147,000 in the support cost. In the five-year, it includes that cost. So you can see the impact of that on the five-year.

Yeah, and the only other thing I would add would be I don't necessarily see it as one FTE per se. The feedback at KDC was very much... a recommendation to support it, but to have that budgeted because we have a $45 million facility and we want to be ready to take care of it. So it's there if we need it. So whether or not an FTE is added, I think that would be a conversation with Aaron, Marsha,

Not necessarily specifically one.

Yeah, that's correct.

Just side by side.

Yeah, and I'll remind you, for tonight's action, it's actually just the public hearing really for the capital side of this. So KDC, by state law, you're required to have a public hearing 60 days before you can spend any of the funds on a capital project. Our approach here is always just part of the budget process. If we're approving these as part of the budget, we'll do the public hearing now. That way, you've met your 60-day requirement for the project. That said, we've all just done hand in hand with let's go ahead and talk about the budget as well. No action is necessarily taken out tonight other than the public hearing. But I will kind of say a little doublespeak here. That said, we're wrapping up the proposed budget. And so if there's any discussion of things that you do or do not want to see from KDC that you want to see in that budget, this would be also the time to have that discussion.

And this is different from... the crime prevention board where it's all or nothing, KDC is a little more flexible and amenable.

That's correct. So we can have a discussion tonight, and if the date of adoption we don't agree with anything or want to change at all, we have that luxury. Crime control, it is you either take it or you send it back. So you can do line items, vetoing, if you will.

Aaron, I did have a question about... I know a significant portion of the KDC revenue is earmarked for paying down the debt on Sports Park. How would earmarking these funds to a specific purpose, would it have any effect on our ability to either pay down debt or incur additional debt if we have a large scale project that we want to incur moving forward? For example, Northeast Park, if we decided to move forward with development of that site.

So if you look at the scope of this by earmarking 100,000 each year, The cumulative effect of that over five years would be $500,000. If you did it over 10 years, you're talking about $1 million because it's $100,000 per year overlooking what salary adjustments may or may not occur. KDC is unique in that it typically is a cash funding capital project fund. You're correct in that about 50% of the fund right now goes to funding the debt for the sports park. the other role of it is to build up over time to allow us to cash fund capital projects and so the next kind of big project out there will be one is the pond dredging which is a million dollars and then northeast park which is afford right now you're marked about four million dollars so we're attending in seven years so with this position in play with this position in the budget over seven year time you've taken away 700 000 to build up to that

What's interesting is there's a debate about synthetic turf, whether or not it's playable, not playable. We're setting aside a significant amount of money every year. There's no guarantee that in eight to ten years, the council at the time is going to say, let's spend this money on synthetic turf. But it's there if we need it. It's the responsible thing to do to budget to maintain. And so that's kind of how I look at the KDC budget. I mean, even like the playground replacements, recommendation is to move forward with updating that. I don't know exactly what the design is going to look like. It kind of tugs on my heart strings to have probably our most beloved playground being torn down candidly due to some road issues and just age of the infrastructure there. I have no idea what's going to be built there other than generally speaking we want to replace it. We want it to be something nice and have it be a good experience for families. from KDC, but there's flexibility to funding.

And we can always do a VA budget amendment if we need to. That's great. It's different. It's kind of what I was asking earlier for.

Yes, sir. We can do a budget amendment to this at any time during the 27th or 26th, if need be.

Felix Mira, Craig Norton. Craig Norton, yeah. Absolutely. Good questions. And it's publicly noticed, sorry. Yeah, you're good. It's publicly noticed to me. Yeah, I'm going to move us along so we can get through our work session.

a little update on that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So first of all, we've been really successful. I'd like to thank Councilman Will and Councilwoman Brennan, as well as staff. We've got a timeline. We approached this like a real big project. We made a timeline, marketing plan. We've already accomplished getting the venue. It's the Bowdoin. We've already picked out the menu, which might sound easy, but doing an event like this isn't. We have options of meat, chicken, and Vegetarian. I always say vegan, but it's not vegan, it's vegetarian. Sorry. But we've got plates, decorations, some decorations, chairs. There was a lot of planning and Karen was very helpful in that because I was lost quite a bit. But really excited about the options there. It's going to be really good. The funding's already been taken care of. Erin's helped us with that. We're gonna be looking at sponsors in the future. It's a nice to have, it's not a requirement, but that's something we'll be looking at. We've already reached out to the six groups that we recommended we work with. That'd be the Keller Education Foundation, Keller Farmer's Market, the Greater Keller Women's Club, the Chamber of Commerce, Lions and Rotary. This first year we're kind of spearheading it ourselves, but in future years the hope meet twice a year, maybe three, to choose the date and the time of the event and then also whittle down the nominations for which council does the final vote, which is why a council can't be nominated. We don't want to be voting on ourselves. But the idea being is there'll be three finalists, just to remind you guys, and then there'll be a winner that night. There's five awards. Again, it's the Business of the Year, Volunteer of the Year, Citizen of the Year, Youth of the Year, and Senior of the Year. Senior, 65, be called kid. We've had good responses right around 50 nominations. Where we're kind of lacking is on youth and senior so we're going to be going to the senior center to solicit hopefully nominations. We've already got some emails on that and for youth we'll be doing the same. We're also going to be reaching out to those six groups again. We have an executive summary we've completed. I want to thank Rachel. I don't know if she's here. words Purdy, but no, having a nice little executive summary, not just for you guys that we'll email you, but for those groups as well. In our marketing plan, we got up on stage and we went around and we talked to people at Keller Summer Nights. At Keller Lights, there was so much going on, we didn't really focus on the announcement, but we did hand out, I think, 800 5x7s. We have a couple hundred left. I put them over there for staff. If there's another event, we'll hand them out. We had 1,000 printed, and good response there. If we haven't yet, we should. we're going to sell tickets not because we need money but just because you have to have a ticket so we know what to order for the food the food has to be in by two weeks prior tickets are going to be $30 the nominations have been through our city website the tickets might be through a third-party website we're still finalizing awards have been really helpful. They helped us with the name. Keller Citizens Awards may not sound like a big deal as far as choosing a name. It seems pretty obvious, but it was hard to narrow it down, especially for this first year, even the nickname. They helped us also with the design of the awards, which right now we're hoping, if it's not too cost prohibitive, it's going to be the water tower. But if not, we have another crystal design. But it's a nice award that people are going to be proud of. They'll put on their mantle. It's going to be pretty good. But we're going to also be of the event. Really the next steps is we're going to hopefully close down the nominations within the month because we've already out the senior and the youth one. We'll be able to close those down, focus on selling tickets. Right now, we're only targeting 150 people, but we have the capability to raise it if we want. Could be. But otherwise, everything's going really well. Staff's been helpful. But again, the whole focus of this is to be council-driven, not take a bunch of staff time. But when we've asked for their feedback, they've been very helpful. So thank you. Thank you, sir. So Mr. Mayor, all's going well. I think really it will start kicking the tires again a month prior when we nail down the agenda and making sure the nominees are there and their families. Because the cool part is, by the way, just the nominees, the three finalists, they'll bring their families and they'll be really proud, get killer swag, and have a good time. Anything y'all want to add? If they're not proud, you just kick them out and give us the next one? Pretty much, yeah.

On the program, we talked about the program.

Yeah, yeah, and there'll be a nice pamphlet program for the event that they'll get to take home as well because it's going to have their nomination. We are working, I forgot about this, we're working with the go down that trail there but suffice to say we hope to have some videos there maybe a little bit like the Oscars will be light-hearted and fun but uh everything's going really well we've gotten good feedback from the citizens and we're gonna really reach out to those groups to see if we get a little bit more and yeah everything's on track what date is again Yeah, October 22nd. It's a Thursday. So we worked with those groups to make sure they didn't have any events going on, as well as the cities. Which, by the way, it's really hard to find a midweek day that doesn't cross the Texas Texas as well. And then just what's going on in the week prior is actually fall break for Keller ISD. We originally had the 15th, so we moved it to the 22nd. Right now, the thing we're really focusing on is the exact timing, whether it's 6 to 8.30, 5.30 to 8. We're narrowing that down, but that's not a huge deal. But the main thing is October 22nd, and that will obviously be nailed down once we start selling the tickets, which again, it's only going to be $30 and the nominees will get to go for free. Probably they aren't supporting maybe, but we'll talk about that later. But yes, good question.

When is the nomination period closed?

We're planning it by year. If we can get enough nominations by even the end of two weeks, but I would say the end of this month, we'd love to close it because that's part of the marketing too with social media. We're not going to do many more posts for it if we've gotten enough nominations. Then we'll just focus on selling the tickets. response after Killer Lights? We had probably 25, so we almost doubled it. But we didn't have as much time. In a perfect world, I'd love to hand it out for an hour, but we had literally 20 minutes before we got on stage and some people were confused. They were like, wait, what? Because so much was going on. But we had a lot going on at Killer Lights. So good thing we focused on summer nights. And then Rachel's social media has been really helpful too. And I think when we go to the Senior Center, I think we'll get a lot of nominations for seniors. And when we reach out, I really think the Lions and Rotary and a couple of these other groups will be really helpful identifying youth of the year in the community as well. oh yeah yeah sorry so in the future those six groups will whittle it down to three and then council votes on the winner this year we might use just staff if those six groups aren't available we're gonna see if they are but a representative from those six groups should narrow down so say citizen of the year award down to the final three and then council will see the final three and we'll vote on it so

Can we put one of those sandwich boards at the Keller Point, too? There's a lot of foot traffic.

Especially for youth of the year, that'd be a good place.

Both of them, really. What is cost recovery on it? What's the dollar amount if we needed to solve for cost recovery? What would the dollar amount be? I don't have it in front of me. We have the budget. It's just feedback. You guys are doing all I wouldn't think too much about it. We might do that.

The big thing when we presented this is we pushed it.

But anyway, I would... We also kicked around the idea of, in future years, soliciting sponsorships for, you know, if there's a business in town who wants to have their name in the program and wants to, you know, be the headline sponsor or multiple sponsors.

Yeah, but real quick, one of the things that we did not want to do, especially for the sustainment of this in future years, is we handed off to those other groups at the beginning for funding. It wasn't that much. It's less than 50. It's way less than 50. The point being is we didn't want it to be cost prohibitive in the future where they're trying to get donations to make it work. We want it to happen and if we're able to

let us know, but you guys have any questions? Yeah, Karen, Greg, anything you want to add? No. That's good.

Good summary. Thank you.

Cool. Good work, guys. Thank you. D2, economic development update.

Okay, so this report is for the month of June. We have three new business CEOs, and that would be Eagle Tavern at 721 Keller Parkway, Suite 100, and that went in the Funky Baja former spot. It seems like they're doing well. We also have Henrik Wealth Management at 620 Stone Glen Drive, Suite K, as well as Keller Christian Counseling at 1668 Keller Parkway, Suite 400. So far this year, we've had 56 COs that have been issued through the end of June, with that being 33 new businesses. And out of those, it's seven restaurants. That's exciting. And then as for building permits currently under review or in process, Skinloft, which you all saw through the SEP process, their permit was issued June 1st, and they will be at $1,600. 75 North Tarrant Parkway, Suite 200. The next three I'm really excited about. Not that I'm all excited, I'm just getting off, it's great. But the next three are food and bed. So Pickleman's Gourmet Cafe at 1521 Keller Parkway, Suite 100. Their permit was issued June 17th. We're very excited about that one. It's going into the Tropical Smoothie, the former space. Pickleman's. Pickleman's. What is Pickleman's? They have a pretty good following in other states. It's sandwiches and pastas and fast casual, but they have a really, really solid reputation. So it'll be good. First Watch at 1241 Keller Parkway. Their permit was issued June 17th. Pretty excited about that one as well. And then Umzi, Vine, and Vive at 444 Keller Parkway is under review. And that is going to be a South African wine bar with really high-end food. And it's going into the former Manny G's. It's going to be really cool. Y'all should go check out their website. It's already up. And the menu looks fantastic. What's it called again? Umzi. U-M-Z-I. Umzi. Yeah. Yeah, if you've been to Social Oak and Trophy Club, it's modeled somewhat after that, but this is themed after the owners who have a South African background. It's going to be really unique and really cool. What's the status of Macalester?

Do you know the status of Macalester? Under construction?

Yeah, we haven't had a permit, but yeah, under construction. Yes, I'm on it. Okay, so just a couple more updates. The Keller 250 initiative was actually really fun. We had really good engagement. We had 52 businesses that participated. That means that they submitted their survey and we got to feature them on the Keep It In Keller Facebook. As far as just kind of switching gears real quick, we will be providing Jordan with cell phone data for Keller Lights next week. So we should hopefully have that. As soon as we have it from our consultant, we will make sure to include it in the Thursday report. So hopefully the next Thursday report, not this one, but the one after that. Do you have a rough estimate?

You're just holding it back.

No, I actually really don't know, but I think it's going to be amazing. It had to be.

I mean, there was not a spot available in the grass over there. And even over there, it was amazing.

I did have somebody make a recommendation that because it was so packed and crowded all over, about maybe contacting the school district next year and allow the stadium to provide seating for those. They said it was packed all the way across. And they went and stayed on that side of Keller Parkway. And there were some people that somehow got into the stadium. And we're watching it from there, and it was visible, so I don't know. It might be a suggestion. Yeah, that's cool.

Maybe then we need to track all of them.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Track, you know, expand them.

Expand the radius.

So for the business initiative, though, Melanie pulled the information from Facebook, and we looked at month-over-month traffic to kind of see, you know, what kind of traction that our businesses get from this initiative. And it was pretty good. And I want to give kudos to Melanie because she cranked out so many social media posts. And she made them really fun and engaging. I don't know if you followed along.

If anybody's not following Keep It In Keller, please follow Keep It In Keller.

Really, really fun post. But just a few stats that are really impressive. So we had over 100,000 views, which is up 112%. And that includes likes. stories, posts, reels. We had over 1,000 interactions, which is up 195% month over month, which is really awesome. And then our page visits, and again, this is for Keep It In Color, not the city page, but Keep It In Color. 1,600 page visits, up 106%. And your suggestion, Councilman Ringkleve, we had 37 businesses that said they would want to learn more about sponsorship opportunities for other events. So that has been passed on to the events team. And overall, it was really well received. Businesses had a lot of fun with that. The posters were Really cute. I want to frame mine. So we enjoyed it. And then last but not least, we will put this on your calendar. It's actually already on your calendar. But I'll keep reminding you, the Hops Groundbreaking is coming up August 4th at 11.30. So hopefully you can all make it out. We'll send you reminders. I think that it would mean a lot to them to have you all there. August 4th? And to say a few words. that we'll remind you about. It's 200 Keller Parkway, so the beginning of Elm Street and Keller Parkway.

And there's hops.

Hops, yeah, from the owners of Hush. Do y'all have any questions for me?

Pickleman's looks great. I think this is going to be the first location in Tarrant County, so good job. It's exciting. The second in Texas.

fun thing to do. Good message to send to our businesses too. Melanie, Anna, thanks for carrying a lot of that. It was cool.

Awesome.

How long is your budget?

It'll probably take 30 or so minutes. It's pretty hefty. If you want to do pavement condition first.

Let's do the PCI.

We've been trying to power through as much as we can with the other one.

Sounds good. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. We have an opportunity to go over what we do every five years, which is go out and do a payment condition index or a survey. Let me start with... It's going to be a lot of information. We're going to go fast, and there will be a test at the end. What is different this year is that the company has changed from IMS. We've been fortunate to be able to contract with IMS, or Infrastructure Management Systems, for the last five different surveys. This most recent one, they've been purchased by International Cybernetics Corporation, which sounds Skynet-ish. It's going to sound like Terminator. But this is able to, they were able to economize a lot of the process. We got a lot more for our money and we got some great information. What we're going to talk about is make sure that we all understand and are speaking the same language and what it is that we purchased. that means in terms of what we can do. In general, pavement management is what it implies is that we need to manage the pavement such that we don't always live in a failure condition. What we try to do is try to do something within the first 40% of its life because it costs a lot less than trying to do it in the next 40%. It gets exponential in its cost. That means that we try to live in an area where something new, before we get to about eight years, then we do some kind of rehab so we can get another eight years out of it. So by the time we're at 24 years, it's still a good, versus 20 years and it needs to be replaced. In general, what we do is we identify how much money we have, we then maintain it, partnership with the county or third party contractors, and then we will evaluate. We are in that evaluation stage now. That evaluation will recommend what streets need to be identified for repair and then we start planning for its operation. It's very balanced and it continues to circulate around. What gets looked at what kind of cracking it is, whether it's longitudinal, transverse, alligator, block, and it goes on and on. Each one of them are indicative of a different type of pavement distress. So that we understand what the ratings are going to tell us. All of the ratings are from 0 to 100. 100 being a brand new street, perfect, smooth, no bumps, no cracks. And one is a primitive road in New Mexico.

You know, we've driven those and you better have a four-wheel drive kind of vehicle.

representative photos of these photos are actually taken by the contractor and then what we also have on the bottom is what the computer looked at so what the process they went through is they had a photo process going through and then they had a down-looking laser and analyzed all of the defects that were on have on the far left is something that is in a failed condition, very poor. If we happen to have a resident who's asked about the condition of Hillview, they were absolutely correct. This is in that area of a 20 out of 100. It is a failed street. It shows tremendous we need to take the asphalt down, redo the dirt, and then come back on top. That's what it looks like when it's anything less than 35. Between 35 and 40, if you're familiar with the Ravenwood area, north of the Knox tank, it also is in that very poor range. What the green boxes are essentially saying, if you don't want to listen to me, is the top box is what it looks like, the bottom box is what we can do. But again, I'm going to repeat this for the remaining five categories. We have seven categories in all. But all of us should be familiar with each of these streets. Summer Breeze is off of Pearson in the northeast part of town. And then you can see we can do some overlays with some spotty base work, straight up overlays like Willis. Again, something that you're very familiar with. To just some surface treatments like Bear Creek west of the Roundabout. But you can see how those PCIs, Pavement Condition Indices, go from 50, 60 to 70. And then we get to very good and excellent streets at 80 to over 85. We've got the Johnson Road east of the roundabout, which was recently redone. Easily a very good street still. And then we have even newer streets that we did just north of Rapp. You're talking about Johnson west of the roundabout? Johnson east of the roundabout. Right. As we go past that, it was rehabbed about a year ago. So I was hoping it was morning.

Well, the names are Dana and Mark.

And it's a composite of the entirety of the street from the roundabout all the way to Pearson. And then finally we have Morning Star, which was rehabbed last year as part of our road maintenance program. I could have just as easily put in here the new sports park roads for things like that. It's essentially a new street. Anything over 85 is considered to be a great street, but it comes with its own requirements. What kind of streets do we have? We have essentially a 40-60, 39-61 split between asphalt and concrete. And of those streets, the vast majority of them are residential streets. We have 12% collector, 8% arterial. We have added this year, which we were not able to do in previous years, the condition of all of our for less money. I attribute that to AI. So where do we end up? This is where we ended up. We actually ended up better than I thought because we have a 75 PCI. So you remember what we're looking at. On the average, doesn't mean we don't have bad roads, but on the average, we have a very good system. And anything, we'll talk about what does it look like. We have a backlog of 12.2. Now I do make a contrast of where we were five, six years ago. PCI. So it's more than double. Which essentially says we may be holding the line a little bit, mostly, but we've got some stuff that's backing up that's going to start working against us. So here's the benchmarks. Here's what we can look at. what backlogs are.

So basically the industry standard is when you're at 45 best practices to take action because of the curve. That's correct.

Okay, thanks. So what does the industry look like? How do we look in terms of others? These cities were within the last couple of years part of their publication We compare. But on the national average, of course, you know, we talk about nationally. It's such a variation. But if you're in the 60s, you've got some challenges. If you're above 70, you're considered to be good. If you're above 80, you are taking names and scratching them off. Historically, in Keller, this is how we've been doing. We started in 05 is when we first started doing this kind of inventory. Because of the ability to track something, you can't improve what you don't track, we were able to make a significant improvement. And you can see how that's varied over the years, but the trend is going. It's, for the most part, holding steady, but maybe trending down. So what does that mean in terms of our network? Yes, we're at a 75%. somewhat better than we were last year, but going the right direction. Overall, on the left, we're talking about what percentage of the streets rank in each of those seven categories. 40% of our streets, actually 60, 74% of our streets are in great or very good or very good condition. It's not until we get down to those reds and blacks that we start to have concerns. I did separate here between what's the current asphalt and current concrete. The reason I did this is to show that asphalt is where our challenges lie. Our concrete streets continue to perform very, very well. And they don't, I guess, very, very little in this bottom

front more expensive for concrete but the maintenance is much better in the long term it may be more cost effective and the county doesn't do concrete county doesn't do concrete that's correct so do you still hold to the like a five and a half years ago question you probably remember it what to councilman brennan's point what do you think is the most like in terms of balancing things out

So anyway. I'm assuming that is when price is not a factor. Right. That's always the trade-off is concrete's great until you start pricing it out. Oh, yeah. Well, like I said, no footnotes.

Especially since COVID. By functional classification, as a reminder, functional classification means the type of road. All roads are classified to serve a particular function. Residential streets are specifically made for residential access to individual lots. You get all the way up to your arterial, it's not expected that you're going to have each lot access. The arterial is made to get you moving from A to B, not to give you access to the adjacent property. you don't get access to the quick trip off the interstate. It's to get you past everything. And so there's a gradation from alley to residential collector to arterial. And each of those are drawn up here. What we're able to identify this time that we haven't done before is the condition of our alleys, the yellow that you see here. We've got a significant need for maintenance in our alleys. Borland, Bancroft, Ottinger, those type of roads that help to connect us to larger roadways, such as Roof Snow, Keller Smithfield, Mount Gilead, the big roads.

So alley again, how are you defining that? I think of alley as an alley. An alley is an alley. Okay, that's good. Where are these alleys at that need to be

area just north of North Tarrant.

Interesting. So what about alleys behind businesses? Do those count?

That would all be private. These are all public alleys and the vast, vast majority of all of the alleys, and I can pull up a map showing it, are in that area just north of North Tarrant Parkway.

I would have assumed those were HOA responsibility.

Those are all public. It's kind of interesting if you

not it's interesting how it impacts the curve well I think historically it's been interpreted as alleys or somebody else's to take care of and everybody said it so nobody took care of it but we're getting our arms around this and I like concrete better too but if we do concrete then we can't ask the county for help

If they help, yeah.

And it's a faster repair. That's the other, you know, when you do the concrete, when you truly do a concrete repair, it's a multi-year project. I mean, you're under that construction fatigue for a long time versus the asphalt is a couple of days.

It doesn't even have to repair concrete nearly as often.

Right, correct. And that's why I think it looks

that makes a difference is how does it compare to the past and how things are changing. And that's what this graph helps us to understand. Divided all of our seven categories into three groupings. The bottom two are backlog, what we need to take care of. The center three are overlays. The top two are make sure it doesn't get any worse kind of category. And you can see how each of them have changed over the last four different surveys. And I'll give you a chance to digest that. while you're digesting all of that is going to play into the next one. So what? This is great. I can see how it's changed. I can see our bag lock is growing. We've got a pretty good minor maintenance or good, very good area. But what does this mean? How does it work into it? All of this comes into our budget. We currently spend about $1.7 to $2 million a year on roads. Nothing to be ashamed of. But what does that mean in terms of what do we need? There's a lot of data here.

74 to 75 if we didn't evaluate it last year? Well, no, that 74 was from five years ago. Oh, okay. I misread it. Got it.

Okay. And then how much does it cost to evaluate them? This year, it cost us about $90,000 to do that with our site, our

this time took us about 90,000 to do that plus the additional information okay so we measure every five years roughly a little bit less than 100 grand okay but the AI has made a huge difference that's cool what's the rationale by doing it every every five years or half a decade well historically it was 125 thousand dollars was the rationale

You do want to give a little space between your programming. So to do it every year, you wouldn't be able to kind of see the progression. But every three years might be a sweet spot to kind of see how you're going along. Five years is kind of in that same spot of, it gives you time to make sure your efforts have been noted. Doing the projects during those. Correct, yeah.

So when do you, from a policy perspective, I don't want to put words in your mouth, Charles, but if the decision was, if your guys' recommendation was to go measure every three years or every four years, is that just a recommendation you guys would make and then we basically approve it as part of the budget, or do you need guidance from us on that at some point?

I think the answer is we need guidance from you, but I think the question is what numbers, are you getting the numbers you need to make the policy decisions that are, And if we can't get you those numbers, then it's on us to make sure that we get more accurate or more frequent information to make sure you get that.

Got it. Thank you. Is there any concern, because you do it every five years, and that was originally driven by cost to evaluate it, that there are issues with roads that, for whatever reason, are unattended to because we're waiting so long?

There will be individual roads. Again, this is an average. Or to use Willis as an example on this last one, how in aggregate, the system isn't that bad. But each individual road may either be better or worse than that average, hence the average. And a road may disintegrate or devolve more quickly than anticipated because of adjacent construction, a change in traffic, a drainage concern that was unrecognized earlier or any of all of those.

just being able to see our backlog versus how much it costs to fix that backlog versus... We're going to look at that. No, I know. I'm just saying.

What do other cities do? I'm sorry? What do other cities do in terms of that interval? It's a five-year...

It's a five-year... They're probably about a five-year as well. 55. Yeah.

I mean, I would think that a five-year was not often enough and we would show that deterioration is a lot quicker than...

We're not a train wreck city, though I think the calls may suggest otherwise. There's always going to be a concern in terms of the maintenance of roads, but the numbers are showing we're actually doing very well. So, that's where, to your question, Mayor, should we do it more often? with where we're at. If you are, then we're spending at the right level. If you're not, then we have options. And that's what this graph shows. Starting with the top one, let's say we want to shoot for utopia. I want to fix everything in the next five years. It's going to cost $150 million over the next five years to fix all of our known deficiencies, and that will take our ratings up to 91, and then it starts to degrade over the next five years, five and a half. Instead, stay at the current 1.7 that we spent this year. Keep the same 12.6% backlog. What happens? And that's our green line. We start at 75 today, and we continue to spend at our same level. We don't increase for inflation. We don't do more than what we are. And in five years, we've gone from 75 to 71. We'll have lost four points. 71, still nothing to be ashamed of, but it's less than where we are today. The next is, what if we just keep steady? I don't want to lose our 75. Well, that means we're going to have to start addressing our backlog, drop it to about 10%, and increase our annual spending to about $5.5 million a year. All right, let's say, you know, 75 is great, but I want to be better than flour amount. I want an 80. Well, you could do that. I target an 80. We're going to decrease our backlog by even more, and it will cost us about $10.5 million per year over the next five years to increase the system to 80. Or the sky is falling. We've got to reallocate money. I can no longer spend that half cent set on the streets. We're going to reallocate it. We're going to stop spending, and we're going to reallocate this to whatever is available. years go down, and in five years our 75 becomes a 68.

So we can do nothing and still be better than calling home five years. Maybe longer. That wasn't the point, but...

So the good news is, this is not a bad place to be.

The challenge is, where do you want to be in five years?

And that's the presentation.

Is there a staff recommendation? Oh, I can show you some cool things, too. About where we should be?

I'm going to defer to

I think ideally you would be between the green and the red and trying to hold on to that 75 as best you can. The 71 at the end of the five years is a good score. It's worth noting that one of the things we have built into the street five-year CIP is adding a 50% so right now street maintenance provides 1.7 when it's all for true construction every other year we've pulled from general fund fund balance to add another million plus into that by 1.1 into that to help help booster that a little bit that's really the funding mechanism we have at this time so then the next question is whether or not we would want to look at doing a some form of shot in the arm possible debt issuance into that. Right now, we have 17 million potentially issued, to be potentially issued in about three years. That's for the Old Town side streets, what we've earmarked that as that said. Council, and we can continue, you know, grow into this, but if Council would prefer, we could reallocate that debt into road repairs as needed. also curious one of the things that you'll see in the fy 27 budget that we need to add is a one-time purchase of a very fancy pothole machine uh so he uh actually pretty nice because it's really to be manned by one person but it actually repairs a pothole in a faster time frame so right now it takes a crew to do that this will actually be able to have one person for asphalt roads right for us for asphalt yes how many does it take for

our current equipment?

It'll take five, sometimes six, depending on the size of the road that we're on.

I'm imagining a whole video series pothole guy. Let's go back to the slide real quick. How expensive is the equipment?

It's a little over $300,000. It's an investment. Yeah, good investment.

million per year so if we keep spending 1.7 million a year you kind of said we maintain the 12% backlog or is that backlog going to grow we keep it one because I think that 12.2 becomes a 12.6 so it barely goes up the backlog only goes up it doubled doing 1.7 but you're saying if we keep 1.7 it's

Okay, Jason.

Okay, I just was curious why the jump? Because that was my concern. We keep 1.7 and we expect the backlog to grow again, but if it's only going to go up minimal, that's a big difference.

I'm assuming the jump is because the age of the loads as they increase.

Up here, they don't degrade very quickly. Once you get down here, every year makes a difference. Once you get down here, whether I do it this year or in three years, it's a complete rebuild and ain't gonna cost any more or less other than inflation. You know, I've been like this for three years. Well, I get that, but I spent that money to keep new ones from becoming bad, and it's still going to cost me just as much in two years. That's correct.

So is the 75 rating on this chart, is that about there?

About here.

Okay.

Okay. What I pulled up here was to give an idea. City Manager has shared a number of everything that's below 55, around that 80 million, that's supposed to be about 76. These are close. There's some rounding errors. But you can see all of the streets that are at 55 or lower. I could change that easily enough, It's not in this one. So this is just the backlog at 40 million. And you can see which streets these relate to. And I can pull into these. Anybody who might be watching or going to see this and say, yeah, you're absolutely correct. We've got some here that are Elm, for example, or Pecan is getting reconstructed as we speak. We've got some by the middle school up here. Yeah, anybody who drives these now, unfortunately, not unfortunately, fortunately, one of the worst ones is being redone as part of the road work that's being finished as part of the water replacement. Pay to work. Pay to work. And that'll be straight next week. But you can tell, they're all over the place, and so it's hard to get a contractor to cover the entire city for just one. And this is a great representation of where are our bad streets? They're all over. And so I try to aggregate it as much as possible, but it's a no-win situation. You do what you can. I'm actually evaluating the data on two different platforms. As part of the ICCIMS, they gave me a three-year subscription to their online platform. This is what I get to do with theirs, and I get to show... How much is their subscription? It is a subscription service. How much is the subscription? For this one, I get one year free. The other one, I'm paying $8,000 a year for. So it's like $8,000 a year, you think, for... And so we can easily identify where are the worst of the worst streets. We can pull those up easy enough. And it allows us to do better planning and budgeting. It does. It's so much easier just graphically seeing this. I can see what the street looks like when they're out there. I can see what their computer looked at when they were doing their analysis. It gives me a roughness index, which we did not have before.

Does it do a recommendation?

It does. It recommends not just the worst but the best use of the money because all the repair actions are in three different categories. overlay, or reconstruction. And while some cities have 15 different ways of maintaining streets, we're not large enough to move the needle or get enough contractors, and so I've got to keep it really simple. I need to overlay it, reconstruct it, or just give me some sunscreen on the streets. But this is what we use to help us.

and used heavily, high usage and also graded poorly.

That's what I meant. Absolutely. We can do that. This information is still new and we're getting this converted into our GIS system so I can easily start to overlay those various layers, age of sewer lines, age of water lines, our storm sewer needs, and start to overlap multiple needs instead of just looking at the index.

Well, I would encourage you to go for the subscription. I'm still cheap. I don't do Apple Music. And I'd probably waste more time searching for songs for my kids than if I just paid for the Apple Music subscription. So kidding aside, that's pretty cool technology if you need it. I think we should get it. I think it's fantastic.

and market yourself so next year they can recommend it?

So what I do every quarter, I'll have a list of any repairs or maintenance activities or roads that have been completed and we'll send it to, in this case, both vendors because I'm evaluating both platforms and have them update the map so that it's a live map at all times. Which brings us back to here. recommendation, I think Aaron was spot on. If we can stay above 70, we're in a good spot. Did you guys note that? Make sure that's in the minutes.

Well, I'll say it. I like concrete, but I also know the core functions of local government are infrastructure and public safety. I prefer we don't trend down, just because at a certain point, I know we're only looking at five years, but in five years, people that are still gonna be here, they're gonna be in a tougher decision, because the diminishing returns when you get below a certain point. But also, as a core function, I don't want us getting worse at a core function. Like if we were looking at this chart, and we were looking at policing, we wouldn't accept anything going down. So personally for me, infrastructure, I'm not really comfortable seeing something trending

dollars here help us to get our arms around yeah yeah we'll start to trend down at 1.7 if you want to stay where we're at we're at five so anywhere between there who puts us between the green and the red does that include matching funds from the county for example this is just the value of the repaired road so like the seven to eight million we got

when you're asking about like the jump right so then we're expecting as we look over the horizon here that the response is going to be linear and not linear and not non-linear which is what you're saying over there so i guess how much we talk about this curve how much confidence do you have as we start to look two three four years down the road that that rate decrease is going to look like that or increase well the further we go up this assumes that there are no

or other things that are ancillary to the stability of a road. Or if we have excessive or tremendous growth in a lot more heavy construction equipment that most roads can take, but none can take for a long duration. So this assumes ideal conditions. This assumes that they all follow that degradation curve and that there are no unique circumstances. This is just the average for the entire system.

mister or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or

Yeah, I agree. I think it would be at least one time it would be interesting to measure again in three years, specifically because it helps catch the outliers, so you don't have a South Willis Lane conversation. I personally, based on your guys' recommendation, wouldn't be more aggressive than that. We'd be generating data while we're receiving data. It'd be silly to do it every year, but it every three years so that way you control for the outliers but also too instinctually I'm exactly where everyone else is at I'd also like to see us target on the highest usage areas so you know if you take the alleys out not that they're not important So I think from a budget perspective, I think we should add what we can. I mean, philosophically, I think we just have to do a really good job of maintaining what we do have and not necessarily worry as much about what we don't have. I just think that's the state of our infrastructure. So that means maybe sometimes just being blunt, we sacrifice a sidewalk project or a new fancy project in favor of maintaining kind of current infrastructure. So I don't know where the numbers come from. where we're at. You guys agree? Anything else to add?

Well I think party wise, I mean, there's a bunch of, you showed the map of all the streets that make up these numbers. Party wise you could look at, you know, wastewater and water pipes underneath. You could look at sidewalks and trails and lump things together that make sense. So you're kind of killing two or three birds with one stone.

can align the PCI measurement with that issuance and then the council at the time can say hey we're a full go for OTK side streets or alternatively we want to you know we haven't made as much progress maybe that's great we can look at that and just switch over and just say let's do

And again, assuming the state allows us at that time to issue a CO, look at a CO issuance of that. To your comment earlier, which I really appreciated, which Keller's always done a really good job of focusing on, this is what we have first, let's make sure we're maintaining what we have, and then think about the new instead of going for the new, and then realizing we didn't maintain stuff. And that's also why we've issued a lot of COs, because we built that road, and so we know we have an obligation to maintain it. So that's been our philosophy with issuing COs.

on the ones that get the most traffic, but we don't have any alleys at like a rating of two or something, do we?

That is just... I would have to, I guess, close it out. I'd have to go back. That's fine.

Just some glaring, obviously if something's just incredibly horrible like South Willis was.

We tend to have frequent phone calls for anything that is that bad.

Okay.

out and do a comparison so that we know what we're saying yesterday.

The McMullen debt obligation for concrete.

Do we have the room in the budget to maintain the 75? Because that's greater than tripling our our budget for road maintenance. And I get that this is all balancing competing interests, but one of the things that I remember standing out from the citizen survey was they want us to be more aggressive with road maintenance as long as it doesn't personally inconvenience them. But they also don't want to pay more in taxes. So where's the... juice going to come. You can't get blood from a stone.

You can pull a little bit from fund balance. That's what we've again factored in at this time. If we were to move the annual from a 2 million to 5.5 million, you'd have to find that funding somewhere and likely would have to come from property. a other funding source that probably can make that level of revenue I know some cities have implemented in street maintenance fees that go on their utility billing that's something we could look into I don't know what the I don't know how much that is still allowed. That may have been something that was allowed at one point, and then the state has taken that back as an opportunity. But certainly, really, what the mechanism is, I'm not sure, but to get to a funding source to go from two to five and a half, you're going to have to find it somewhere, especially if it's going to be an ongoing activity, which is what that would indicate.

But to Councilman Wally's point, if we went from 1.7 to 2.5,

You can do a little bit of that for fund balance. Again, eventually you run out of fund balance. I mean, you pull from the well too many times, there's nothing there. And pulling from fund balance is double, because then you don't make the interest off the investment. And it likely is at the expense of something else that's being traded off. It's still your emergency day fund, so you're still running the risk that you don't have that there when an emergency happens.

the timing of issuing a CO? I mean, does it make sense to be more aggressive? Because the problem I get at the state level, we're not, we have seven minutes to opine. We can pick up the budget after. I'm still, I love your maps, Alonzo. That was a great presentation. Seriously, I appreciate it. But have you guys put thought into timing of potentially issuing

Again, we still haven't slated it as that 29 because that's what fits our schedule as it is. If we wanted to go issue something between now and I can reach out to our bond advisors and say, how can we issue a CO now for what will be roughly about $17 million? and get that done before the end of the calendar year, we do have the timing to do that. We'd have to post, I think it's a 60-day notice on an issuance. And that way, if people did want to repeal, they could. And then see if we could layer it in a way that we could still have it really take effect in 29. We have a little bit of fund, we have fund balance and debt that can let us float some of that. So we can look at that as an opportunity as well.

So, and again, I think that would be... Yeah, I was going to, I'm where the mayor of Pro Tem's at. I would look at it and then in August, in one of those council meetings, we should just come back with, and then at that point, I think I would just be kind of prepared, hey, do you want to move forward, and if so, how? Move forward with issuing a certificate of obligation. Because my concern would be if we don't do it now, we get preempted, and this thing's going to snowball, and then it's a missed opportunity. Not that any of us like that. We're a low-debt city anyway, and so at some point, it's actually, like we did with the sports fiscally responsible to use your purchasing power. And we're, I think, pretty close to that.

Yes, sir. And you also get into the generational, like, the people that are using the road should probably be paying for it, and that's part of the logic of issuing debt for some of these bigger things versus the smaller projects, cash funding makes sense. So there's some logic to issuing debt, especially for road repairs. So.

I'd like to see it though. Thank you. Alright, thanks Lonzo. Well, let's go ahead and adjourn and get ready for the regular meeting.

I just invite us to a moment of silence. Let us pray.

So Lord, in your mercy, hear our prayer.

Amen.

Amen. If you'd please stand for the Pledges of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.

All right. We actually have two important items to recognize today. Not more importantly, but importantly, I want to say happy birthday to my son who turns one today. we had a great time. He shoved a cupcake right into his mouth right before we got here. So happy birthday, Zach. And then I would argue, maybe more importantly, we do have a proclamation. And this is always a special opportunity for us in Keller to honor our nation's heroes and our beloved community members. And so tonight's proclamation is for Mr. Edward Erie Suri. Sir, I'll go ahead and read it. So on behalf of the city of Keller, whereas Mr. Edward Erie Suri, born May 10th, 1932, honorably served the United States of America as a combat veteran during the Korean War, demonstrating courage, sacrifice, and unwavering dedication to his country. And whereas the freedoms enjoyed by all Americans have been preserved through the service and sacrifice of brave men and women like Mr. Erie Suri, who answered the call to defend our nation during a critical period in world history. And whereas the United States has continued celebrating the 250th anniversary of our nation's founding, the city of Keller recognizes the profound sacrifices of veterans like Mr. Edward Erie Suri, whose service helped preserve the freedoms and ideals which upon America was built. And whereas at 94 years young, Mr. Edward Erie Suri, continues to exemplify resilience, honor, and patriotism, serving as an inspiration to the citizens of Keller and future generations alike. And whereas it is fitting and proper that the city of Keller recognize this gentleman for his distinguished military service and express its sincere gratitude for the sacrifices he made in service to the United States of America. Now, therefore, I, Ross McMullen, mayor of the city of Keller, Texas, on behalf of the city council and our 47,000 residents, do hereby recognize and honor Mr. Edward Erie Suri.

We certainly would appreciate it.

And then what we'll do after your comments, sir, I'd love to take a picture with you if that's fine.

Super.

All right. The microphone is yours.

Thank you. I'd like to share with you just a few of the memories during the Korean War. In August 2026 this year, it will be the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the destroyer USS Stickle DD-888 to San Diego after my first of three combat deployments in the Korean War, with two additional deployments aboard a destroyer escort called the USS Courier DE-700. I was a sonarman first-class petty officer engaged in anti-submarine, anti-mine warfare, having graduated from the U.S. Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare School in San Diego, California. But during that first employment, we sailed over 60,450 miles. Our destroyer had sonar weapons that included 6K guns, two fantail depth charge racks, a 24 projectile hedgehog mount, and something called a sonar mousetrap. Under fire, we plucked out five downed aircraft pilots out of the sea. We refueled at sea 31 times. We expended 3,196 rounds of 5-inch artillery on our NRA, plus thousands of 40-millimeter rounds. During a strafing, we shot down two Russian MiG-15s, an attacking aircraft. We rearmed nine times at sea, reprovisioned at sea seven times, destroyed many submerged enemy sea mines with 40-millimeter shells after being detected by sonar. That was the greatest menace that we had at sea. Our sister ship got hit by one of the mines that blew off 85 feet of the bow, and they luckily were able to steam backwards to Japan. We provisioned at sea seven times, destroyed many mines, We docked a number of ports in Japan, which included Yokosuka, Sasebo, Kobe, Tokyo, and I'm going to mention two others in just a minute. We made armed landings on North Korean beaches. I personally landed six times at night raids as a platoon leader carrying a Browning automatic rifle. We entered Buckner Bay in Okinawa and made up and organized 200 killer task forces that went after submarines. mines were being laid by Russian submarines during that war, and we would give them a chance to surface, which they weren't supposed to be there, and if they didn't do it, they were under attack. We went on the Formosa Patrol five times. It's now known as Taiwan. We sailed through the Pescadori Islands three times, sailed through two typhoons bursting a seam on one of those occasions. We entered in a task force at Subic Bay in the Philippines twice. One was a very secret task force mission that included 24 destroyers, one heavy cruiser, and two heavy aircraft carriers. And I'll refrain from mentioning what that mission was. I made at least a dozen bathy thermograph drops, sometimes under sea-going nighttime conditions. The reason for the bathy thermograph The ocean has within it what's called thermoclines, which are differences in temperatures. And if sound passes through, it causes it to bend, just like you'd stick a straw in a glass of water, you'll see it bend. And if it caused the sound to bend, then we'd get false ranges and bearings on targets. So we had to know where those thermoclines were, and the use of a bathy thermograph was the way to do that. We also visited... Hong Kong twice, for honor and honor, had a chance for rest and recreation. But one of the most impressive things was I had the opportunity to visit both Hiroshima and Nagasaki just a couple of years after the bombing. And I can't mention, can't even give you any imagination of what the horror of that attack, that bombing was. Well, all of this happened long ago and far away. Thanks for listening.

If it's all right, we'll take a group picture with you. Oh, yeah. We'd be honored. I'd be glad to do that. And if you have family here, George, you want to come up? George? Yeah. Come on up. All right. Let's go. Stand over here. Is that a good mic?

How are you today? Short. All right. Kind of line up. Yeah. We've done this before.

Before you go sit down, in addition to thanking you for being here, are you still doing rock art?

Yes.

You are? Yes. So I think one of these guys thought I was crazy, but one of the many hidden talents, I guess, in 94 years of experience, 94 years young, the most intricate pieces of rock art I think I've seen. I actually have one at, you have one too, they're awesome. And so if you're ever looking, usually you're at the Keller High School Christmas event.

Yeah.

the senior center. So anyway, he's a man of many talents. I just want to say thank you for being here on behalf of all of us. It means a lot. And if you have anyone else that you'd like us to recognize, we have a couple of veterans on council. We're always looking for an opportunity to do that.

So Lewis here, Mr. Selden.

Yes, sir. Yeah. And he's part of the, he got you in here. So thank you for being here, Mr. Selden. Thank you, sir. And I still think I, after many times practicing, almost got your name right. Iri Suri. Good to see you, sir. All right, E1. I'm going to go ahead and, just for anyone who's here, for the, what is it, G3. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing back up for that item. So if you're here to talk about G3, which is the planned development change, from 36,000 to 15,000, the preserve at Keller Oaks, then you can speak now or you can speak then, but I will open up the public hearing. So for persons to be heard, this is a time for the public to address the city council on any subject. However, the Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits the city council from discussing issues which the public has not been given three business days notice. Issues raised may be referred to city staff for research and possible future action. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. Do you have any cards, Kelly? We do have one card. If you would like to speak during persons to be heard, go ahead and feel free to come on up. Mr. Kerry Moon. Kerry, I know you want to speak. It looks like on G2. Is that right? Would you prefer to speak now or then? Then? Okay, that's fine. We can reopen that public hearing. Not a big deal. Is there anyone that would like to speak during persons to be heard? If not, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Consider approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, June 16th, 2026 regular city council meeting. F2, consider approval of the minutes of the Friday, June 19th, 2026 city council work session. F3, consider approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 special city council meeting. F4, consider a resolution approving the termination of the December 4th, 1984 street use license agreement for lots 1A and 1B of the Burbine Addition subdivision located approximately 3,500 feet north of the intersection of Indian Old Trail and Shady Grove Road. Zoned SF 36,000 minimum square foot lots and addressed 9297 and 9299 Indian Hole Trail. F5, consider a resolution adopting the City of Keller Title VI non-discrimination plan. F6, consider a resolution approving an interlocal assistance agreement for fire and explosion investigations coordinated by the Tarrant County Fire Marshal's Office and authorizing the mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Keller. F7, consider a resolution authorizing the purchase and installation of Bauer Verticon SE18 SCBA air compressor system, including related equipment, training, shipping, and an annual service and air testing agreement from August Industries LLC through the by-board cooperative purchasing program for fire station number two and authorizing the city manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the purchase. So that's items F1 through F7 on consent. We have a motion from Mayor Pro Tem Dubberly.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move we approve consent items F1 through F7 as presented.

And Councilman Whatley? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Let's vote on the consent agenda. All right, F1 through F7 passes unanimously. Thank you. G1, consider a resolution approving a supplement to the public highway at-grade crossing agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Company for the Keller Hicks Road Improvements Project for the Public Works Department and authorizing the city manager to execute said supplement on behalf of the city of Keller. Alonzo, did you have a presentation or does council have questions? We've heard this one a couple times from here. We can just, council, do you have any questions for Alonzo on this item?

Mr. Mayor, I don't have any questions for Alonzo, but I think we should go over it since it's been so long since. You want to hear the presentation? For the people at home.

Well, I don't know that we have a presentation. Alonzo, to Councilman Wool's point, would you mind summarizing where we're at and how we got here?

I'd be happy to summarize. Excuse me. Alonzo Nguyen, Public Works Director. Before the council this evening is a supplemental agreement that modifies the original agreement signed by the, excuse me a second, pardon me, signed by the city and Union Pacific. Whenever a road project goes under construction, in this case it was Keller Hicks, There's an agreement that's made at the very front end between the Union Pacific and the city with estimated costs. Everybody agrees that this is what we think that will happen. However, the agreement also says that regardless of what we agree to, whatever the actual costs are is what we will split. This project's been underway since 2012. This was a project managed by the city of Fort Worth. The long story short with this is that The road was reconstructed, the crossing was reconstructed, and ultimately the railroad crossing arms were reconstructed. It was unanticipated that those arms needed to be replaced, which is why this supplemental is necessary. There is additional work done to make sure that the clearance between the cross arm and the pavement met the federal regulations. After some discussion with Union Pacific, We have what we believe have arrived to the final cost so that it's not an open-ended agreement, and that's what this supplemental agreement identifies and finalizes.

Thanks, Alonzo. I'll just briefly say thanks for sharpening your pencil on this one. I think this is the third time we've had it on the agenda. We just wanted to make sure the costs were firm and accurate and that we had engaged Union Pacific. So thanks for doing the extra legwork on this. Unless there are any questions, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve item G1. Councilman Will? I second. All right, motion and second. Let's vote. All right, G1's approved. G2, consider an ordinance approving a specific use permit for Amazing Hair Salon in an approximately 500-square-foot existing building on .06 acres located on the north side of West Hill Street, approximately 132 feet northwest of the intersection of South Main Street and West Hill Street, legally described as Lot 1, Block A of the Genesis Gift Shop Edition, zoned Old Town Keller and addressed 112 West Hill Street, Seferina Ramirez, applicant Ludi Covarrubias, owner. And then I know we had, I'll go ahead and reopen the public hearing. I know we had Mr. Kerry Moon. If you'd like to come up and speak on this item, sir, and if there's anyone else that would like to speak, we'll open and then take action to close the public hearing, and then we'll consider the item.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Kerry Moon, 124 South Main Street, relative to this meeting. item, agenda item, 124 South Main Street, 128 South Main Street, and 136 South Main Street, which is the three properties affronting Main Street on Block 2. Just want to speak in opposition of this case. The neighbor's a wonderful lady. This is just not the highest and best use for this property. Block 2 is your best retail sales, and Keller does $100,000 a week, those businesses there. There's a lot of foot traffic there. This is what mayor and councils over the years have invested in infrastructure for connectivity and walkability and limited what uses can go in that area so that we can bring more programming and activity to Old Town Keller. And I do want to clarify that we lease over 30 doors in Old Town Keller. There's not a single tenant of ours that would be negatively impacted by this use going in there. We wouldn't lose a single customer to them. The reason we're in opposition of it is it's just not the highest and best use. They're not going to bring any new people there. They're not going to bring any new tax revenue. for our city. They're not going to pay sales tax. They're not going to pay business personal property taxes. They're not going to inject any capital into the new building unlike 118 Olive later down the street, later on your agenda item, to increase the tax base for that property and to generate more revenue for your general fund. Many of you in your campaigns, you know, you're running for fiscal responsibility and lower taxes efficient government but to do that you've got to have an increased general fund and revenue going into those general funds so we can pay for city services while keeping taxes low for our homeowners and for our businesses and so um the the other two arguments are that the market has not dictated another use you've got an economic development team that can help bring a good user to this property uh work with the owner you know in front of a you know, the people that come here to reach out to your economic, that reach out to your economic development existing and put them in, that reach out to your economic development council and put them in touch with this tenant, this, I'm sorry, this owner to help them bring a better use. Lastly, the concern of a small house. Everything's small in Old Town Keller. I can give you example after example of a small house on a small lot doing big sales. You've got the Keller Tavern. That was a 600 square foot building. We doubled it in size. Sales per square foot TBCs is top three in Tarrant County. You've got Wobby House, which was an old house before a taco shop, and then the station, and now Wobby House. And it seats 270 people now. Just an old house on a small lot, and look what it does now. You've got the Taco Luna Loco being built. 3,200 square foot building. Used to be a small art house on Main Street. Now it's a $2 million project bringing in another retailer, Southern Co., Southern Soul & Co., a new retailer, coming to Old Town Keller, all because we had the foresight to put policies in place to protect retailers in this area and get the highest and best use out of our property. So thank you all.

All right. Thanks, Kerry. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on item G2? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem, you second? I opened it up. Second. All right. Let's vote. Actually, Councilman Armstrong beat you to it. Get a quick point here. So a motion by myself, second by Councilman Armstrong to close the public hearing. Let's vote. All right. Public hearing is closed once again. Is the applicant here? Yeah. If you wouldn't mind coming up, we'd really appreciate it.

Mayor while she makes her way down. I just wanted we do have a staff presentation It looked very similar to the last one just to make sure you knew we did have that prepared if you want to hear it Sure.

Yeah, we can hear the presentation and then if y'all have anything to add would love to hear it Thanks, sir Okay All right, I'll go quickly through this so the aerial and Sony Maps subject property is Old Town Keller and As a reminder, the applicant has operated in this location before, but they closed their hair salon in April of 2024, after which the UDC was updated to include the spa definition, and so that is the reason for the SUP this evening. The applicant, Amazing Hair Salon, will offer a variety of grooming services, including hair cutting, washing, and styling. All services will be by appointment only, and here are their hours of operation. If you recall, this was tabled on May 5th of 2026. And so I have the facade of the building at that date and then what it looks like today. They updated the paint on the side of the building as well as the approach to the building with the pavers there in the front. Again, just another look at that space. The Unified Development Code parking requirement for this use is three spaces. All parking in Old Town Keller is shared, but there are at least four spaces adjacent to the salon. Here's a look at the surrounding land uses. On April 2nd, we mailed out 26 letters of notification for this public hearing. Staff has received two emails of opposition and also two emails of support in response to this request. At the April 14th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the SDP request as presented. Brief reminder of the UDC criteria when looking at an SDP request. And then again, the request for you this evening is a specific use permit to operate a spa in the Old Town Keller Zoning District. Council has following options. Approve as submitted. Approve the modifications. Table or deny. And then I will hand it over to the applicant.

All right. Did you have anything you wanted to add? No? Okay. If you don't mind being here for questions, we'd certainly appreciate it. Mayor Pro Tem?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, thank you all for investing in Keller always. Council, especially in my over five years here, we've spent a lot of money on Old Town Keller. and we chose to create the Old Town Keller zoning district to really target experiential businesses, so we get restaurants and things of that nature for entertainment that come there. Generally, when I do a SUP, I'm looking for highest and best use, but also if it provides something that we don't really have in Keller. We have over 70 spas in Keller, 11 already in Old Town Keller's base zoning, and it I generally don't like saying no to a business, especially coming to Keller, but I think this would be a great spot for possibly ice cream, daiquiris, or something that fits kind of the nature and the best use, and also what was envisioned by the council when we set the law on the zoning for this area. So for me, I'm not in support for that reason, and also because we have so many spalls already in Keller, especially in Old Town Keller. But I just wanted to explain why I'm not in support.

Okay, thanks, Mayor Pro Tem. I did have one quick question for staff. No comments. Anna, you had the opportunity, Anna's our Economic Development Director. Have you had the opportunity to meet with the applicant, or have you guys had any discussions?

Yes, we have had some discussions about... The use, we've had discussions about facade improvement grant. They chose not to pursue it at this moment in the event that they need to do a more extensive facade improvement in the future. So the improvements that they made was on their own accord.

Okay, if you don't mind sticking around. Councilman Brennan.

Yeah, so real question for the applicant of the amazing hair salon. One of these two ladies here, the applicant. Jessica, do you want to have one of them come up? Okay. I have a question for the applicant.

Yeah, if you wouldn't mind coming on up, Councilman Brennan has a question or two. Thank you.

Hello.

All right, so I have a question for you. So you opened up a certificate of occupancy in 2019-ish, I think, and closed in 2024, something like that. And now you wanna reopen in the same facility, doing the same thing. That makes people like me skeptical. What was that about, and why do we think that your business will be successful now? What have you done differently, and what will you do differently?

Okay, first of all, I'm the owner, so she's going to be my tenant. Could you speak into the microphone? I'm sorry.

Very good hearing.

Yes, I'm the owner of the property, so I'm just helping her, you know, to open this place again. The reason why she decided to stop and go into another place and try, you know, for her own, but then now she just decided to come back. That's the main thing, because her customer were asking, you know, if she can open back, so she's going to try that again. I mean, there's not a big main reason for why she closed, you know.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so I'm somewhat kind of understanding Councilman Doverly's comments about it's kind of a strange location for a little hair salon, but it's certainly within what is allowed in Old Town Keller. And you're going to have foot traffic there during the day. Women like me getting our hair done, maybe walk over to Wabi House for lunch. While it's not the most preferable business there, I do see some benefit at being there. You've already made a lot of updates to it. It sounds like from the outside, the painting and the pavement. And it's within the classification of Old Town Color. We are allowing that. I mean, I think if you read the if you read the code, personal service businesses is what is considered, that they are consistent with our Old Town use. So while I'm not, You know, if we were starting from scratch with a blank building, I probably would not pick a hair salon. But now that you're there and you're going to try to reestablish yourself there, I do think it will help, you know, bring some business to the surrounding community. It's a very small building. I think it's something like 5,000 square feet on .06 acres. I mean, it's not a whole lot of businesses that can fit that bill. So I'll be expressing my support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Whatley?

Yes, ma'am. You're the owner?

Yes, sir.

You own the building?

Yes.

And the lady who is opening the salon, how long is her lease?

One year.

One year?

Yes, sir.

So she basically has one year to be successful. Yes. or not?

Something else, yeah.

Have you had anyone else offer you any opportunities to do anything else, open any other kind of business?

Not at this time. I mean, because she was there before. That's the reason why I, you know, decided just to go with her. But we didn't know all these changes, you know, for the city of the old town Keller. So that was a surprise for us, you know, that went through all these processes. but I mean, I know her very well, I know she's a very good tenant, and I know she got her own customers, and you know, that's the thing, the reason why, you know. No, because I haven't offered it, you know, because I knew her, that's the only reason. I mean, I didn't have it for rent or anything at this time, so.

Okay, so nobody else has tried to lease the property. Okay, well, because I'm a, very strong believer in the American capitalist system and I appreciate the vision that the city has for that district and that area and I have great respect for it and hope for it and it has obviously done well thus far. But to give the young lady 12 months to try and make her business successful And since you, as a property owner, have not had other opportunities to lease your building, then I certainly see no reason not to support this. So thank you for answering those questions. Thank you.

Thanks, Councilman. Councilman Armstrong?

We've talked. We know each other. I was the one that called you about the project last week. I want it to be taken care of better than it's been in the last year or two. I mean, even this week, I noticed that the yard has been mowed, but whoever did the mowing picked up zero trash. They just made them smaller and more of them. I don't think that that building, not necessarily you, but I don't think that building has been a good friend in Old Town because of the way it's been not kept up. So it needs to be respectful of the other properties that are down there and let's everyone be a better neighbor.

All right. Thanks, Councilman. I did have a quick question, Anna. So for a space this size, 500 square feet, you're a pretty creative person. What types of businesses could go in there? Could we have a Dubberly ice cream shop? Is that a?

Does he want to open one? Just kidding. It would have to be something pretty limited. I think it would have to be really creative, something where, like, it had to be almost like a pickup window only type business because any form of production of any kind of food or Bev would need to have enough space. I think that 500 square feet is, all of it would be utilized with production of whatever item it was. Could it be done? I mean, there's a lot of really creative people, but I do think that this size could be challenging It's a hard one.

Sure. Okay. So maybe a pickup window. Yeah, I mean, really briefly, to counsel's point, we'd love to see the building kept up. Thank you for painting it and improving the exterior. One of the things we can do, Stan, is I think we can put a time limit on an SUP, right? We could have them come back. We've done that before.

All right.

Okay, so I'll just let council know that personally, you know, I'm kind of where Councilman Brennan's at. It's not the most exciting thing, but, you know, I also want to see the building occupied. So I'm not saying it as articulately as Karen did, but that's where I'm at. Mayor Pro Temp.

Sorry, you kind of literally said where I was going about the timeline. This isn't a mountain I want to die on or anything. We had coal. What was the ice cream place across the street? They didn't create the ice cream on site. They just sold it there. I think something like that would go there. Cold Wave. Thank you. And, again, you know, I'm just looking at best use. And because we have over 70 spalls and 11 already in Old Town Keller. But, you know, for one year, you know, I hope you all are successful. And, you know, Councilman Brennan's point, foot traffic is always good. It's just for me to vote against the base zoning that we chose for this. And when we designed Old Town Keller, we had a vision for it and spas weren't part of that vision. However, if it helps and giving it a year, I'm fine for it. So if it's for one year, I'll probably be in support to give you a chance. So we have someone there as opposed to it being empty, definitely.

So I'll just, I'll briefly say I'd be open. I'd probably give it a little bit longer timeframe just because of one year is a little bit of a quick turnaround, but I'd be okay personally with two years, because that kind of, I think, gets where everyone's at. Also reflects Councilman Armstrong's point, as well as the Mayor Pro Tem's, about making sure the building's kind of kept up and things like that. So is that something that you would be agreeable to, potentially, a two-year SUP? And then in two years, if everything's going well and the building's kept up and you want to keep the hair salon, then you'd come back through the process and we could extend it for a longer period of time, potentially. What do you think?

Well at this point it's not on me because it depends on the people that's gonna be renting it. So I cannot do nothing you know about. Because like I say for me it was a big surprise to me what kind of business had to go through all this council thing because before we didn't do it. So but.

So I think Councilman Wiley has a motion on the table. Councilman are you comfortable with the two year idea?

It would appear to me that if this young lady is not successful in 12 months, and based on how small the location is, I would doubt that there would be another salon or spa rushing to rent the property. That's just my gut feeling. I think it'll either be successful and sustained, or it won't. And So I don't necessarily have indigestion over it, I just don't know that it's a necessary limitation.

That's just me. Yep, that's why there's seven of us. Good points. So we'll go ahead, and from a procedural perspective, I get excited when this happens. Only attorneys get excited when this happens. What we'll do is we'll hear Councilman Watley's motion. If you'd like to make a condition on the special use permit, anyone on council is certainly welcome to do so. But Councilman Watley, let's hear your motion.

All right, I... I motion to approve item G2 as presented.

Thank you, sir. Councilman Brennan?

I second his motion.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I'm not going to amend. I'm fine with it. Okay, well, we have a motion and a second. I would like to see the two years, quite honestly. I think that's a responsible thing for us to do, given all the investments in OTK. So I'll make a motion to amend Councilman Wiley's just to add the two-year component to the SUP. I want to support it. So let's see if I have a second on that. Is there a second on my amendment?

I second.

All right, there's a motion and a second. So what we'll do is we'll take a vote, and then if that passes, the item's finished. If my amendment fails, and I'm just explaining this for the new folks on council, then we'll consider Councilman Wiley's motion. All right, let's vote on the amendment. G2. All right, so G2 passes 5-1 with an abstention. Congratulations, thanks for coming in and doing business, and hopefully we see you back in two years and you're very successful. All right, G3.

I thought that was gonna be an easy one, guys.

G3, we're gonna reopen the public hearing on this. It's to consider an ordinance approving a planned development zoning change from commercial and planned development 1406, single-family residential, 36,000 square foot minimum lots to planned development, single-family, 15,000 square foot lots in commercial for the preserve at Keller Oaks. A proposed planned development consisting of 55 residential lots, two commercial lots, and approximately 5.28 acres of open space on approximately 39.38 acres of land. legally described as situated in the Richard F. Allen Survey, abstract number 29, tract 4D, and being all of lot 1, block 1 of Harbinson Acres Edition, and being all of lot 1HS, block A of Parago Place Edition, and being all of that certain called .364 acre right-of-way dedication shown on said plat of Parago Place, located on the east side of the North Main Street, approximately 300 feet southeast of the Park Avenue and North Main Street intersection, and addressed as 1000, 1004, and 1008 North Main Street, Preston Crowe, Skorberg Company is the applicant. Sue Southstrand and Ann Burfitt, PBS Family Limited Partnership, the owner. Who wrote that? Stan, did you write all that? Yes. We got through it. All right. This is a public hearing. Let's hear the staff presentation first, and then if there's anything the applicant wants to add, we can certainly do that, and then we'll have the public hearing.

Yes. I do have a presentation, and then the applicant does as well. All right. Okay, so starting with the aerial and zoning maps, the subject property is currently zoned SF36 and commercial. This item was originally tabled at the May 5th, 2026 City Council meeting. What's before you today is the updated concept plan showing 55 residential lot subdivision with one commercial lot and one commercial open space lot. Of course, the proposed project is located 300 feet southeast of the Park Avenue and North Main Street intersection and is on approximately 39.3 acres and has 5.28 acres of open space shown. As a reminder, since the concept plan was submitted with the PD, a future detailed site plan will be required to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council at a later date. I just want to take a moment to compare and contrast the two concept plans, showing the one that was seen in May and then in comparison to the updated concept plan today. So I mentioned the current zoning is commercial and the planned development SF-36. The proposed zoning is planned development SF-15 and commercial, and there is the surrounding zoning districts. With this application, they're also requesting a FLOP amendment to change the level of land use designation from mixed use, medium density single family, and low density single family to medium density single family and retail commercial. That will be on the next item. With this updated plan development, the proposed PD standards mainly follow the SF-15 zoning standards written in the UDC, but I did take a moment to highlight some sections that exceed the UDC standards, such as for the minimum lot width and lot depth, as well as the rear yard setback and the minimum dwelling size. The applicant proposes 100% masonry to include brick, stone, and cementious siding on the front elevations. All other elevations will comprise of a minimum of 80% masonry. And then there are additional standards related to the roofing, garage, and driveway materials that are included in the development standards. As far as landscaping, they are proposing to meet the UDC requirements. All front yards shall be fully landscaped with a minimum of two canopy trees. For lots 38 through 46 shown on the concept plan, they will have an added restriction of being only one story in height. The applicants can speak on this further, but that was something that was discussed with the Harmonson Farm neighbors to the south. Multiple areas of open space are proposed with this plan development. The open space total is 5.28 acres, or 15% of the residential gross acreage. As mentioned again, since the concept plan was submitted, they will need to do a detailed site plan, including for the commercial lot, in which case they'll have to show the open space for that. A five-foot sidewalk shall be built along the street frontage of each lot by the home builder or developer, as well as within the open space corridor as shown below. And then an HOA shall also be required and be responsible for all open space areas. Included in the development standards, there is a 35-foot tree preservation easement along the back of lots 7 through 17, which will be reflected on the final plat. Within this easement, the developer, home builder, or future homeowners shall not be permitted to remove the protected trees. The concept plan shows two commercially zoned lots, a 3.66-acre lot and a 0.63-acre open space. The applicant proposes that most uses that are allowed in the commercial and retail zoning districts in the UDC shall be allowed in that commercial lot, subject to SEP approval for each use. An additional list of prohibited uses was included in the development standards, and I've actually got them pasted here on the slide. According to the applicant, the purpose of the 0.63 acre open space is to provide a landscape buffer between the commercial and residential uses. The UDC requires a minimum 60 foot side yard setback on commercial lots adjacent to lots zoned single family. So due to this, the lot will not be developed and can only be used as open space. There is also an exception to the UDC requirements when it comes to the screening and fencing. All of these were shown in the proposed development standards. The one section that differs from the UDC requirements is right here along the south side of lot one. Whenever adjacent to open space, UDC requires open style fencing and they are proposing masonry screening wall to kind of wrap along the commercial and then be an entryway to the subdivision. A preliminary drainage and utility plan was provided, but the applicant will be required to provide a full set of civil plans that meets the UDC requirements, as well as for the trip generation form. Regarding ingress and egress for this PD, the applicant is proposing a main entrance off of North Main Street with a connection to Keller Springs Avenue to the north that will be gated for emergency access only. You may recall that the applicant previously proposed a main entrance off North Main Street with connection to Keller Springs Avenue to the north and Homestead Drive to the south, which was gated, that has since been amended. So per the questions asked by the council members, just given a very brief overview of the update since May, 2026, they reduced the number of lots from 59 to 55. They removed the south connection to Homestead Drive, again to the Harmison Farm Subdivision, Now proposing an emergency access gated connection to Keller Springs Avenue or the Greenway Park subdivision rather than a full street connection. And they removed the request in zoning exceptions related to lot width, front and side setback, and lot coverage with the intent to follow SF-15 zoning standards. Then there's also a comparison to the adjacent plan developments mentioned before, Harmonson Farms and Greenway Park. We also had a question about the original Greenway Park PD concept plan that was approved by City Council in 2020. That plan did show a cul-de-sac at the end of Keller Springs Drive. The preserve at Keller Oaks PD before you this evening is proposing to demo that existing cul-de-sac and provide a connection point that is gated for emergency access only. Lastly, I just wanted to do a summary of the proposed PD standards from what was requested in May 5th of 2026 to the UDC requirements and the current request. For lot coverage, minimum lot width, and landscaping, they are proposing to meet the UDC. For fencing, again, they have the eight-foot masonry screening wall wrapping all around the south side of lot one to the front setback line. The front and side setback will meet the UDC, whereas with the minimum drilling size, they're proposing larger than what the UDC requires, and then they do have the exception to access points. On April 2nd, we mailed out 67 letters of notification for this public hearing to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. Staff has received multiple letters of public opinion in response to this request. As of May 5th, the total percentage of opposition from within the 200-foot buffer was 18.5%. But with some withdrawn opposition as of this evening, total percentage of opposition from within that buffer is 3%. Of course, all written public feedback received by staff related to this item has been included in the agenda packet. I did also separate what was received before May 5th and what was received this evening. So you can see all that. At the April 14th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the plan development zoning change request with the following conditions. That no points of egress or egress shown on the proposed concept plan shall have an emergency access gate. And that 75% of the proposed lots shall meet the UDC standard for minimum lot width in SF-15 zoning. That second condition has been met by this updated concept plan. Referment of Section 8.02 of the UDC states that when considering a zoning change request, the City Council shall consider the following. Whether use is permitted by the proposed change will be appropriate in the immediate area. Whether the proposed change is in accord with any existing or proposed plans. The amount of vacant land currently classified for similar development in the vicinity. The recent rate at which land is being developed in the same zoning classification as the request. how other areas designated for similar development will be or are unlikely to be affected, and any other factors which will substantially affect the public. Lastly, to summarize everything, it's to consider a request for a planned development zoning change for approximately 39.38 acres from commercial and planned development SF-36 to planned development SF-15 and commercial for the preserve at Keller Oaks, which is a proposed planned development consisting of 55 residential lots, two commercial lots, and approximately 5.28 acres of open space. Council has the following options when looking at this request. Approve as submitted, approve with modifications, table, or deny. And then the applicant also has their own presentation they'd like to give this evening.

Thanks, Alexis. If you wouldn't mind coming forward.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, Council, city staff, and residents who've taken the time to participate in this process with us this evening. My name is Adam Bucek. I'm with the Skorberg company, president of the company. I've been with us for about 24 years now. Had the pleasure of seeing this grow. Our office address is at 8214 Westchester Drive, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas, 75225. I'm joined by some of my teammates. Our company here is tonight. My partner, Preston Crowe, is our engineer. So if we have any technical engineering questions, we can certainly address those as well tonight. But with that, I'll jump into the presentation and get right to it. Now, before I jump in, I wanted to say some of these slides will have some familiarity to most of you, but we do have a couple of new council members, and out of respect for that, and some potential new residents in the audience tonight. I'm just going to make sure I don't miss anything, because there's a lot of things that we talked about two months ago, and we've made a lot of changes. So I want to kind of build that from the ground up, but I'll be as quick as I can. Thank you. Talk a little bit about ourselves, the Scorpion Company, very briefly. We'll talk about the proposed development and how we've incorporated city council feedback since the May 5th meeting in which we were tabled. We have a representative product, and then we'll have a closing, a few closing remarks. Scorpion Company's done over 140 projects to date, over 7,000 lots developed, all in Dallas-Fort Worth, were privately held. We're known for doing high-quality, sustainable value, single-family residents throughout DFW, Our subsidiary home building company is Windsor Homes. If you've seen Windsor Homes, that's our building company. We've been in over 30 municipalities in DFW. We would be welcome back with open arms to all of them. And we currently have 20-plus active projects. Some brief examples we just pulled just because they have some similarities to this infill site that we're talking tonight in Keller. This is in North Shore, a project called North Shore. It's in Lakewood Village. South of El Dorado, it's about 57 acres, 120 lots. It's an 80 by 120 and 100 by 150 subdivision. David Weekly Homes is our home builder. Price point's about 800 to 1.2 base. In Rockwall, we have Quail Hollow, which is north Rockwall. We've got about 250 lots there with a mixture of three lot types. Windsor and Shattuck Homes and Highland Homes are our three builders, and we're in the mid-sixes to about a million bucks. And then we have another one in Rockwall, which is a bigger lot program, which is 16,000 minimum square foot lots called Winding Creek in Rockwall. Windsor and Shattuck are building on those lots, and we're 750 to 1 million plus base. This proposed development is a beautiful mixed-use community that will be compatible with and enhance our surrounding neighborhoods called the Preserve at Keller Oaks is our proposed name. We know where the subject location is. It's about 40 acres gross, so you've got about 36 residential acres and about three and a half commercial. Alexis has showed the existing zoning, so I won't spend a whole lot of time on this slide, but you can see basically the western half is, from its annexation days, is SF 36. It hasn't been rezoned since it was annexed. And then you've got the commercial over on the off of 377 on the western side. As I mentioned, the property hasn't been rezoned. It was annexed in the early 80s. The default zoning designation is SF36, a holding category, and it's remained as such. No one's actually brought this in for a zoning case, although the properties around it have. And so we are hopeful that this revised project here tonight will be well received. We made a lot of enhancements to it. Of course, the properties to the north and around us have much higher densities and intensities than SF36. Future land use, though, which was not too long ago updated, does have mixed use on that western half and the medium density designation for single family on that eastern half, which was 15,000 up to 36,000 square foot lots. And you'll see we're in that range, on the high end of that range. To the north, we've got medium density Greenway Park. To the south, there's the high density component of Harmonson Farms, which is our adjacent. And you've got a little holdout piece that's low density, 36,000 square foot. It's really separated, got bifurcated from the larger lots further to the east in Harmonson. That's from the gas line. That's the gas line that runs north and south to the east of our property. And you've got the mixed-use outline in green. 2021 Future Land Use Plan Goals. We went through this last time. Again, I think we checked all these boxes. I'm not going to read all this detail, but it's restructured residential land use categories. In 2018 FLOP, this property remained unchanged. This proposal does fit within that objective. Same thing with the mixed-use land use category. We provide walkability. Trails connecting the commercial to the residential and through this to the single families subdivision further to the east We retain and enhance the characteristics of our existing neighborhoods, and we do provide some diverse housing choices Predominantly much closer as you'll see in here to Greenway Park then to Harmons and farms But we do have a you know somewhat of a very modest transition from the southern side of Harmons and farms On April 14th, we did receive the unanimous recommendation from the P&Z Commission. As Alexis said, we did incorporate the conditions that they approved us, recommended approval on. On May 5th, we were tabled prior to the election, the last council election, but we took all that feedback to heart. We made additional, had more discussions with residents and neighbors, and as you saw, we've got it down to a 3% 200-foot buffer perimeters opposition. I've been doing this for about 25 years. I've never seen such a low percentage on an infill site like this. It is a high level, high quality of a community as Keller. I'm not saying that to be gratuitous or throw bouquets. I'm speaking absolutely fact. We removed four lots, went from 59 to 55. We added $100,000 of infrastructure costs to remove a cul-de-sac that improves direct access to 377, directing traffic away from Greenway Park. We increased our lot size by 9% from about 18.2 to almost 19.8. That's the average. As Alexis pointed out, our median lot size, which is the most predominant, is over 20,400 square feet. The average lot size just straight up would be over 20,000 square feet if we put the HOA-maintained tree preservation buffer between us and Greenway in the lots, but we decided it would be more certain of tree preservation to have it as an HOA-maintained open space. Not only is our median lot size as is over 20,400 square feet, but it would also very much be, it effectively would be if we just put that tree buffer in the lots, but we kept it out so it's certainty. There's no policing that's needed. It's an HOA preservation area. And then as far as the number of lots over 20,000 square feet, we have now got almost two-thirds of our lots, increased from 16 to 35 lots over 20,000 square feet straight up. Number two, we removed the road connection into Harmonson Farms, something our neighbors to the south are extremely happy about. No objection from the city's fire marshal. Pardon my, I am numerically challenged because that should end up being number three. Added an emergency access gate at the connection to Greenway Park. Most, but not necessarily all. Obviously we have some new members too. Council members expressed support for that gate based on the fact that the adjacent residents north and south of us strongly voiced demand for those gates. And again, fire marshal had no objection. removed all major variances. And again, the only minor variance that's left is we want to spend extra money on the 8-foot fall masonry screening wall as opposed to just a tubular steel fence, which the UDC requires. So if our one variance in this whole PD bothers you, we'll be more than happy to put the tubular steel back, but we think it would be better in more continuity to have just the masonry wall extended on the south side of the first lot when you enter from the commercial. This current PD request, where we're at tonight, is the first column, and you'll see a bunch of nuns, because we don't have any variances. This is a clean PD. We exceed in terms of the minimum dwelling size. The fencing, we have, as I mentioned on the screen, that one lot, you just want to do a more expensive masonry wall, and that's the only variance. But again, if that bothers us, we could put it as tubular steel very easily. So it's a clean PD, compared to where we were last time in May, two months ago, so we effectively meet the UDC or exceed it. I want to give you a little history. We did not do this two months ago, but I think it's relevant where we are based on the journey we've come. There have been a couple of attempts prior to Skorberg being involved with this opportunity. In March of 24, there was an applicant that brought forth a plan. In June of 25, also no affiliation with Skorberg, there was an attempt to zone this property. We brought forth our first attempt to council two months ago in May. And now we have our current plan that's before you tonight. This is a table that shows you the journey and the differences that's been moved forward to council as a result of this process, working in good faith and collaboration. And we looked at these prior plans before we even made our first submittal, which is why our May 26th submittal was so much better than the previous two applicants as well. But it wasn't enough, and we kept sharpening our pencil. We worked with our landowners, with our property owners, with our builders, with staff. And now we are at the July 26 plan, which is the column you see over on the right, outlined in green. So the current plan is by far the best and highest quality zoning proposal this property has seen in recent history and is anchored in city and immediate neighbor feedback, those who are most impacted by what is developed. This was the March 24 plan, prior application. The June 25 previous application, and not related to Goldberg. This was our application in May of 26, two months ago. And this is where we are tonight, our current concept plan. We maintained our 3.66 acre commercial tract. As we stated, we've restricted incompatible uses from the PD and require that all uses become brought forth to council for an SUP request so you still have that extra bite at the apple to control what you're getting. But we made this depth in a deliberate and strategic way to maximize the value and the types of sales tax attractive types of users that we can put on this property. We're going to be building the Detention facilities all at once with a single family, so it'll be all turnkey, ready to go for the commercial subsequent when we do have the ability to bring forth a commercial user for you. We've engaged some retail consultants in terms of that and came up with a couple options. We could do a multi-restaurant building here, about 20,000 square feet as a single building. Or we could do two plus or minus 8,000 square foot buildings with plenty of parking. And Ingress would work. We didn't spend a lot of time on this last time, so I want to add this. The TERS number two fund benefits. We commissioned a well-respected consulting firm called Launch Development Financial Advisors. They specialize in public financing districts. And based on this current concept plan, for just the residential portion only, because I don't know what the commercial is going to be used, but that would be extra on top of this. This table shows the estimated property tax collected by the city over 30 years between the base city tax, City of Keller is the first line, and then the TERS benefit, number two, with this existing July 26, 2026 plan tonight. There's an extra $14.13 million that the city would get. That would be the total estimated tax revenue in the city over 30 years for just the residential portion. And then the sum of the yellow, the difference column, the middle column, I should say, is what the current zoning is. estimate from the consultant launch precluded. And so the difference is basically about $5.6 million over the net incremental tax revenue of the city over 30 years, which is about $187,000 a year on just a residential with this proposed plan versus the existing zoning. And that also assumes that if you would start this development under the existing zoning at the exact same time, which obviously you'd never make up time, but this is just if everything was straight up, you developed it, option A, option B, what's the difference? And it's an extra $187 a year, the city, just the residential. Trails and open space. We've got our five-foot concrete trail. Like I mentioned, it's important to have that connectivity to be able to walk to the commercial from the residential. You've got it on the north, east, west, and the south. as well, and it goes out to the east. Our fencing exhibit, there's no changes from last time. Again, this little A that I'm marking on, I don't know if I can show it. Let's see if I can, is it this button, or which is the, to show the pointer?

Sorry.

Oh, did I just mess it up?

If you use this, you can use the laser pointer.

Oh, okay, thank you. This little note A here is referencing that small section of masonry wall, that minor deviation from the UDC, again, to continue this masonry wall from behind the commercial or between the commercial and the back of these lots just along the southern edge of this first lot. That's it. And again, it's more expensive than doing the tubular steel. We have enhanced entry monumentation. This is a rendering we had done to show what we're illustrating here tonight. It will be a retention pond with fountain. Next section is a compatibility comparison to Greenway Park. Just a restatement of the slide I showed you earlier with the surrounding properties. You've got the medium density future land use on the east side. You've got the mixed use on the west side. You've got Greenway Park, medium density to the north, high density Hermanson Farms to the south. So the total open space between Greenway Park and the preserve ranges from 50 to seven feet comprised of our HOA meandering open space of 35 to 55 feet wide outside the lots. Then you have Greenway's existing adjoining 15 foot wide HOA landscape buffer, plus we have a 35 foot tree preservation easement on the backs of the adjoining lots for additional tree preservation, which brings the total visual open space to between 85 and 105 feet between Greenway's homes and our homes, which is very significant. But specifically just with respect to the lot size, The Greenway Park lots on our entire southern adjoining end, lots 1 through 15, averaged 22,744. And our matching lots averaged from lots 7 to 17 are 22,678. So you're effectively on the mismo. This is just some arrows to show you the thought behind and the importance of this tree preservation because you're getting a very beautiful area that's preserved. It's a beautiful tree line and it's worth preserving. And again, if we had stuck this in the lots, we'd be over 20,000 square foot straight up average. The lots in Greenway Park are plus or minus 100 feet wide. with the exception of only five lots in the northeast area, which do not abut the preserve. Those lots are reflected here in the red dots, and you can see the lot widths, 106.5, 112, 148, 195, 127. Otherwise, they're about 100 feet wide. Our lots, in contrast, for all of the lots outlined in blue, which is the vast majority of them, and it stretches all the way from north all the way to the south, the Harmonson Farms, range from 112 to 125 feet in width. which means the preserve will have more of a state feel when driving through these lots versus Greenway Park. Greenway Park's lots are just deeper, but they're not as wide. The narrowest lot in the preserve is 106 feet wide. Nearly two-thirds, or 63% of the preserve lots, as I mentioned, are 20,000 square feet straight up. And our median size is 20,410 square feet. Greenway Park's residential density is 1.44. Our residential density is 1.54. Hence, the preserve far more mirrors the density of Greenway Park than Harmonson Farms, having only 0.1 more units per acre of density, which in our opinion is very reasonable considering the preserve abuts high density immediately to the south in Harmonson Farms. Compatibility with Harmonson Farms. Same slide as we've already seen, so I'll go to the next. Our average lot size for the lots that abut Harmonson Farms for lots 38 to 46 is almost 18,700 square feet. The average lot size for our adjoining lots in Harmonson Farms, lots 28 to 34, is 12,600. So we're over 6,000 square feet larger and 48% bigger than our adjoining lots. So that's why I'm saying this is a much more greenway park than it is the Harmonson Farms, not even close. Representative product. First, I'll mention that our plan development standards will ensure high-grade construction standards and premium architectural design. We've got a 3,000 to 5,000 plus or minus square foot projected home size with a 1.2, 1.5 million plus base price. Options, obviously, with these types of homes can get added to 300,000 pretty quick, but that's kind of our base price expected range. Next, I want to just jump ahead. This finishes the representative product, but I want to jump into some information we got this afternoon, which is with staff. We got the information, the statistics on the feedback from the residents, opposition letters, support letters. So I'm going to jump to this slide right here. I'd like to make some comments about this. We've received, as of two o'clock this afternoon per staff, we've received 70 support letters, 24 within the 300 foot buffer, which are indicated here in green, 46 support letters outside the 300 foot buffer, some of which may be in the green here as well, but we've got 24 within the 300 foot buffer, 46 outside. We've got 134 opposition letters, three within the 300 foot buffer, which is denoted by the red, 131 outside the 300-foot buffer. 50% of the 131, or of these letters, excuse me, not just the 134 total, 50% of these letters from the May 5th meeting to the July 7th to today came from residents on lots less than 20,000 square feet. Only 24% of the letters were from residents on lots greater than 36,000 square feet. 86 of the letters outside the 300-foot buffer, which is 64% of them, were identical form letters circulated around by email with, I'll just say, misstatements of fact. I don't know how else to put it. And I'm going to specifically address some of those because when you read these things, you can think that, well, that's just supposed to be what it is. But I think because of the magnitude of these 86 letters, two-thirds of these letters outside the 300-foot buffer, it needs to be addressed. Number one, that we're asking for lots that are half the size of the current zoning. That was a direct quote from the most predominant repeat letter. Our lot size is almost 19,800 square feet average. Our median is over 20,400 square feet, which is 55% of the current quote unquote SF 36 zoning category, but again, that's been a holding category since its annexation. Aside from the fact that this property has never been truly zoned, Since being annexed, I think the flood becomes quite important and relevant, and it calls for mixed use and medium density single family, which is 15,000 to 35,999 square feet. We're conforming with the flood. That wasn't that long ago. That was recently updated. Our proposal is only 0.1 units per acre more dense than Greenway Park to the north and far less dense than Harminson Farms to our south. Number two, quote, there is no good reason for this development to pass other than financial gain. My comment to that is, does the opposition really think the overwhelming support received from the adjacent and surrounding Keller residents inside the 300-foot buffer came from people who didn't take the time or the care to educate themselves on the facts and merits of this zoning request? There's a lot of green dots on this board. Or is it more an organized attempt from those who live in other areas of town who share an ideology that involves dictating and controlling those whose livelihoods would be most impacted by this decision, including our landowner who's had this in their family for nearly a century? Number three, that we've been pitching the idea that expensive homes set back off Highway 377 won't sell. Our projected home price point range is between 1.2 and 1.5 plus options, as mentioned. We're obviously banking on top market home pricing. When I was walking up to City Hall this evening for this meeting, I saw banners lining the circular driveway out front that read, City of Keller, Texas' most family-friendly city. Is it family friendly to think that this average base price is inadequate? Number four, the form letter refers to our zoning request as down zoning. This statement is confusing because down zoning means reducing density, a less intensive use. In contrast, up zoning references higher intensity uses. Therefore, we are technically up zoning from SF36, but again, this property has never been in fact zoned since the holding category of SF36 was put on the property at annexation. So this zoning request perfectly adheres to the FLUP, maximizes the tax benefit as explained on the TERS number two, and yet is nearly identical to the density of Greenway Park, within .1 difference. Number five, in all caps of this form letter, 86 of them, the last sentence of the form letter reads, please listen to your constituents and do not help developers line their pockets. We agree with the listen to your constituents. But I would add and submit to you that the disproportionate weight and deference should clearly be given to those whose lives and property values will be directly impacted every day with this development. Our neighbors actively engaged with us, took the time to drill down on the facts, and they concluded on their own merit that this project is meritorious of their and the city's support. It would be a disservice to them and their voice to disregard their support of this zoning request. As for lining the developer's pocket comment, I don't wish harm on anybody. I wish for everybody to be successful. But make no mistake, we as a developer would be imprudent to not insist on a mercantile enterprise that will survive the ebbs and flows of the real estate cycle. I'm not ashamed to admit that. The city would not want this project to fail any more than we would. Furthermore, the compromises our landowners made, thank you, to enable us to bring forth this great modified plan with all the goodies and the concessions which far exceed anything brought forth before the council on this tract was not free. Both our landowner and we as the developer have made huge financial concessions to bring forth this plan for your consideration this evening. The reason I broke this down is because there are other letters that modified this form letter a little bit, but I just counted the ones that didn't even bother to change a sentence. I wanted to break it down because It illustrates, in my opinion, our opinion, that there's a misguided protest going on here, and it skews the reality of what's going on when you look at that aerial exhibit. People will always be entitled to their opinions, but facts are facts. And the folks who submitted their support letters took the time to engage and learn the facts and got what they wanted from us. And they're the ones who are going to be on the back porch drinking coffee and looking at this every day. And in my opinion, in my experience, I think one support letter from someone who lives right next to something like this, an infill site, Should count for three or four times any other type of letter that's from someone across town. Not that everyone doesn't have a voice, but I think they should get deference. I'm almost done, I promise. Last closing comments. For infill sites like this, it is rare to receive such an outpour of support from adjacent and surrounding neighbors as this project has received. The daily lives and welfare of these folks will be most impacted by whatever develops on this property. We hope City Council gives their voice the merit and weight it deserves, and they have made their voice heard. We would not be here if it would not for our landowner whose family has been a great steward of this property for nearly a century. They have been through a lot, and they've been through this process a couple of times. They've learned a lot. They chose Scoreboard because they wanted a professional group that would approach the entitlement process the right way and put forth a plan that will be a great asset for the City of Keller and its residents. We respectfully request City Council to vote in favor of this request. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Adam. I'm going to go ahead and it's at our discretion, but we'd like to reopen the public hearing. We closed it, but we're going to reopen it. For anyone that's here and would like to speak, would like to hear from you, we do have a couple folks signed up. First up is Mr. Jared Marcus. If you wouldn't mind coming forward, sir, and just say your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council, thank you for hearing me. My name is Jared Marcus. I live at 905 Norma Lane in Harmonson Farms. I have been a real estate broker for 19 years, realtor for 34 years. I've been a Harmonson Farms resident for six years. I'd like to state that I believe the highest and best use of this property is the medium-density residential. I happened to pull up some stats on the Greenway Park neighborhood just this evening when I came in, And I was a little surprised that it's going as slow as it is, but it illustrates why the need for the medium density. Greenway Park had 24,000 square foot lots with pricing starting at $2 million. Those houses, they've sold three houses on the MLS. And that project's been going for, I believe, about two years now. Three houses. Those three houses did not sell over $2 million. One sold for $1.85. One sold for $1.95. one sold for 2.15, and that was 5,700 square feet. At the end of the day, if this land is held to the 36,000-foot standard, builders won't want to go in there. No one's going to want to develop it because the property, it's just going to become economically unfeasible. The price level is going to get to a point where they're going to have a very difficult time trying to sell these properties, whereas the proposal that Scorberg's making at $1.2 to $1.5 million... This is a sector of the market that is still moving. It'll move better. Harmonson Farms, Greenway Park, the land's sitting right smack between the two. It's a pretty good transition because the section of Harmonson Farms, Harmonson Farms, the minimum lot in there is 12,000 feet. Our big lots are at the north end. They're an acre and a half. But the lots that butt up to the new development, they are the smaller lots. and at almost 20,000 square feet. It's transitioned from our neighborhood into the 24,000 square foot at Greenway Park. We feel like it's going to look like an extension, a newer extension of Harmonson Farms because the builders are the same. Harmonson was Highland and Drees. This is going to be Drees and Windsor. At the end of the day, it looks like it will be a successful endeavor. It should move pretty well. I've got to ask the question, though. Should there be any question about the downsizing these lots from 36,000 to 15,000, that R15, when Roseberry Hill just got approved. Roseberry Hill is the land right behind Harville Elementary, between Harville and the old McDonald building supply. That was zoned in at 8,400 square foot lots. I don't understand that, why that was R36 and now that's zoned for 8,400 foot lots. Also not too far away center stage, also small lots. So I don't see why a developer wanting to put in 20,000 square foot lots, why they should meet much opposition. I think that Skorberg had stated a lot of that opposition is from others. Finally, we appreciate that Skorberg has changed the plan to close off Homestead Drive. This is the number one objection that my neighbors have stated to me, is that they did not want the additional traffic coming through. And by essentially closing Homestead Drive, but dead ending into the fence at lot 38 is going to prevent that traffic we think it's a great thing thank you thank you mr marcus all right next up we have linda taylor you wouldn't mind name address for the record good evening council thank you for reopening the public hearing

My name is Linda Taylor, 1201 Borland Road, Keller. I'm here to speak on behalf of myself as well as my husband, Ernie, who was unable to attend this meeting tonight. We are opposed to the preserve at Keller Oaks being down zoned from low density 36,000 square foot lots to medium density 15,000 square foot lots. When this came to Council in May, I recall Council Member Brennan suggested the developer consider reducing the number of houses by at least 12. Tonight's proposal only reduced the number of houses by four, which is next to nothing. and will not increase the size of the yards once you build an average 3,500 to 4,000 square foot house, plus a pool and possibly an accessory building, et cetera. It still has these houses sitting too close to each other with minimal green space. Keller residents don't want to look like North Fort Worth. There should not be any road access to any developments that tie into Greenway Park, Oak Street, or any portion of Harmonson Farms, as all that will do is add to more traffic on Mount Gilead and Borland roads, as well as to those subdivisions. As I recall, when most of you ran for office, you were in favor of supporting the city's current zoning laws, yet frequently your votes do not reflect that. Why does Keller even bother to have zoning regulations when you rarely seem to abide by them? Many of you also ran on keeping Keller's small town feel. This development diametrically opposes that. This council is supposed to represent the interests of its citizens, not the interests of the developers. Continued down zoning damages the character of Keller and its infrastructure. My conversations with various council members over the last year or two about the status of our population once the developments on the books have been completed is confusing. Some say we will not have reached 50,000 and others say we will already have. Once we do, Keller will be responsible for maintaining our main thoroughfares which will result in increased property taxes which residents do not want. We respectfully request council deny this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next up we have Debbie Bryant. If you wouldn't mind, name, address.

Good evening, Councilman and Mayor. Thanks for hearing us and reopening the public hearing. First of all, I'd like to clear something up. Our previous mayor repeatedly defended down zoning by saying that a lot of the lots in Keller, the low density areas, are only zone 36,000 because of septic tanks. That wasn't the original plan, and I know this doesn't really pertain to the annex parts. But before those were annexed, the perimeter of the city was zoned one-acre lots. If you go to the YouTube, I've told many people to go look at the Keller 1971 video on YouTube. It shows when they came with the plan when DFW was being built, they wanted to preserve the character of Keller, the country feel. So they zoned the perimeter one acre, and then the density got higher as it went towards downtown. So now then some council after that took them down to 36, and they could only go to 36 because of those septic tanks. So thank goodness for septic, or they would probably be smaller than 36 at this point. So I'm glad we had the septic tanks there. Anyway, so I just wanted to clear that up, that it was one acre was the plan. So here we go again, another development wanting to increase residential density in Keller. We must ask ourselves if and why this needs to happen I've given you a list of detrimental effects of higher density. There are no positives to increasing density except for developers and landowners. I totally understand the landowners wanting to get as much that they can for their land, but we must remember that in most cases in Keller, the land has been passed down several generations, meaning it's a windfall for the heirs. The land needs to be priced appropriately for the current zoning. It already went from one acre to 36 after all. I don't know about that area, but anyway, some of it was. No one is trying to deny them the right to sell and develop the property as it is zoned, but the feasibility of its selling is between the developer and seller, not the city. We the residents are frankly tired of having to send emails and come here every time there's a residential zoning change request. Is there any hope of sticking to the zoning and land use plan? Do we want to protect any of the remaining low density areas? Do y'all know how many subdivisions have been built at 36 over the last 30 years? Do y'all know how many subdivisions we've actually kept at zoning? Four. That's it. I went over all of them. They are Manors at Waterford, Southern Hills, Gene Estates, and Stonebridge. How sad is that? All the rest have been down zoned. So many of us voters voted for y'all on your commitment to preserving our low density areas, so why must we keep going through this song and dance. 36 just provides a decent-sized yard once a Texas-sized house is built on it. We don't have many large, low-density parcels left, and we are passionate about wanting to keep them preserved. Most of you know how the majority of the citizens feel about this, so why is there any question at this point? I understand the residents next to the land are willing to accept higher density, sometimes due to stubbed-out roads, but if it's built at zoning, they won't have many cars cutting through. It would be a trickle. Please consider the city as a whole. We have three new subdivisions being built at higher density right now, so we have plenty of houses coming available on smaller lots. I hope you will deny this drastic downzoning and protect what country feel we have left. Once the land is developed, that's it. There's no turning back. Thank you all for your service.

Thank you. All right, that's the list that I have. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak during the public hearing? Now's your chance. If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem?

I second.

All right, motion to close the public hearing. There's a second. Let's vote. All right, public hearing is closed. Any questions for staff or the applicant?

Councilman Wally? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've sat and listened to a lot of commentary about this development. I've talked to citizens, and Storberg is a very reputable firm. They build beautiful houses in divisions that are 20,000 square feet. However, There's some misconceptions, and I just want to make sure for people watching at home. Zoning is the law. I, myself, have to have strong motivation to change the law. Zoning is the law. Profit is not motivation to me. We did a survey recently, and the majority of the citizens of Keller one of their top priorities was preserving our small-town feel and the character of our city. The fact that our citizens, and it's regardless of people, they may live on a 5,000-square-foot lot, but they love driving to and from work and feeling like they're driving in the country. They don't want more 5,000 square foot lots or 20,000 square foot lots. It is zoned 36,000. You cannot convince me, based on gene estates out here, I personally, you can't convince me that that's not profitable. A friend of mine has a 5,000 square foot home. He's my best buddy. He lives in South Lake, just on the other side of Pearson. He's on one acre, a one-story, 5,000-square-foot house. That acre is really eaten up. It does not feel like a huge, spacious estate. It's a full acre with a 5,000-square-foot home. The houses in this development are 3,150 to 5,000 square feet. On a 36,000 square foot lot, the development would look like Gene Estates. Very spacious, lot of open space. The houses would not be pushed together. The desire to down zone to the average of 19,000 square feet is 55% of what the land is zoned for. So I imagine Gene Estates with 45% of their lots gone. It's no longer going to look like it does today. It's going to look like a lot of what's west of us, a sea of rooftops, very large, very impressive homes, beautiful homes. But somebody with a good stride should almost jump from rooftop to rooftop. That's my opinion. I've been on this council for nine years, and I've listened to developer after developer use the FLOP as reason to develop according to the FLOP. And as Stroberg pointed out tonight, the recent FLOP When you do a FLOP, it's supposed to be done with a future vision of the city. And I was told even 20 years down the road, it's a 30,000 square foot overview of what might happen years from now. As soon as you approve a FLOP, the first thing people do, because you imagine that density will increase over time, And the very first thing a developer will do is say, well, look at the flop. Yeah, that's not supposed to be right now. That's supposed to be in the future, not right this minute. I don't see the flop as justification to do something. I also don't see if you build something next to a development that has compatibility That word was used a lot in the closing statement. Well, we're compatible because we're just like them. My grandmother always said, one rotten apple will spoil the bunch. Well, just because you have one apple that is not desirable in the bunch, if you wait, you'll have two. If you wait, you'll have three. If you wait, you'll have a dozen. Point I'm making, just like cancer spreads, just because it is next to something that is quote unquote similar, in my opinion, is not justification for it to be the way you want it to be. That's why I just had to explain this, guys. I'm just an old country boy. I'm the cowboy on council. I'm the guy that rode a horse up here to City Hall because I believe in common sense and listening to the people that talk to me and live in the community that I share with them. Because of that, I personally cannot support, I'm disappointed as much as I am impressed by Storberg's reputation. They build a beautiful home. But you're asking me to downsize and cut 45% out of what's zoned. I can't do it. I just can't do it. I was disappointed that only four lots were removed. If they were up around 75%, eh, maybe. But I'm sorry, I can't be supportive of it. I'm open with my opinion. I wanted to share it with my fellow council members, with people watching and with the people in the dais. I appreciate both sides of the argument. And thanks for listening to me.

Thanks, Councilman. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Councilman Armstrong?

I've got several ideas. I'll bounce off everybody. This has a proposed gate across it, correct?

On... What is that street? I believe there's one north and south, both limited.

Just... Keller Springs, they're proposing to put a permanent gate across there. Remove the cul-de-sac. Thanks. Remove the cul-de-sac that was poured there on property that was not belonging to Greenway, which in reality gives a different perspective on what you're getting. When you're buying in Greenway, if you're getting the last lot or two, you thought you were getting a dead-end street. I will not vote in favor of a street that is supposed to have connectivity with a gate on it. I also would like to propose that the sidewalk that comes in off of Homestead continue into the green space on the side of that last lot involved. The sidewalk dead ends there at the fence, there's a wrought iron fence there, big gate that's not gonna be there when they're done. You could open that up to have connectivity to where people that are in this new development and Greenway could access to the schools, to the different businesses rather than having to go back out to 377 if they wanted to walk and have this family friendly parks and trails and sidewalks that connect. I would like to see two less lots, especially up and around where that lots 47 through 50 are at. That would take you to a number that is identical, probably, or bigger than what Greenway is. Those lots are pretty close to the bigger houses on Greenway's development. I don't do the money on that end of it. You developers are doing that, so I don't know if that's even feasible. But as it's right now, I cannot support it if the gate is gonna be voted for across there, because there's gonna be about six houses there that are unhappy that everybody pulled through there anyway, and now they have to use driveways to turn around. Thank you. Thanks, Councilman.

I do have a couple questions for staff, or the applicant, whatever's most appropriate. How did we get from 18 to 3% in terms of the residents that were adjacent to the proposal being opposed to the project? What were the contributing factors? Certainly talked to a fair number of residents, but how did we get from 18 to 3? How did the opposition decrease by that number?

I can't, and I'll let the applicant speak in a moment, but several of the support letters indicated conditional support. I think once they saw that the access was removed to Harmington Farms and then the gate proposed, they were willing, at least for several of the Greenway Park owners, to offer conditional support and withdraw their opposition. That was specifically based on the concept plan before you this evening. Okay. Okay.

I was just going to show the buffer map as the 18%. Those from 12 properties within the 200-foot buffer were opposed in May. Since then, the letters that Sarah mentioned, and also some from Harms and Farms as well, reduced that to only two properties within the 200-foot buffer and one within 300 foot for a total of 3% opposed.

Okay. Thanks, Alexis. To Councilman Armstrong's point, there's one access, I think it's to the south. Wasn't there originally two gates that were proposed in one iteration of this project? Well, I think at first it was two open access points, north and south, and then there were two gates added, and now there's, I think, a house that cuts off access at one maybe the southern point and then the northern point would be gated under the current proposal going into Greenway Park. Is that?

So the proposal going into P&Z looks similar to what you see as the May 2026 concept plan, but had gates across both access points to the north and south. And then as a condition of the P&Z recommendation for approval, they requested those be removed. Going into council on May 5th.

And then weren't the gates added based on resident feedback to the north and south?

Yes. So in May, what was before council on that bottom concept plan had the emergency access gate to Harmons and Farms on the south. The open connection to Greenway Park on the north.

Okay. I personally like the fact that we still have access through an emergency gate, but I do understand the concerns of residents. That meeting room was actually pretty packed. I think it was the last time we heard it, and there was a very unified voice from the residents, and I think Harmons and Farms, at least that's how I took it about keeping the gate. And then I did have a question or two about the analysis on the tax increment refinancing zone. This is probably, Adam, you were talking about it during your presentation. It seemed to me your analysis showed over the course of 30 years, it was the first time I had seen that number, about 7.5 million additional between current zoning and what a change would potentially bring. Come on, Aaron, you're the numbers guy. Is that what you remember too?

It was a pretty big number.

It was $187,000 a year over 30 years. Yes.

The total over 30 years incremental between the existing zoning and this proposed July plan is $5.618,187,000 per year over 30 years for just the residential portion.

I thought there was a $7.5 million. We're going to pull up the slide so we can... Because I heard you say $5 million, and then I saw $7.5 million at the bottom right. I just didn't understand that.

So the 5.7 is the total of the 1.8. Let's see if I... Is it... It's a pointer option. Laser pointer. There you go. This 5 million... 5.6 number is the sum of the yellow. That's why I shaded it yellow. The 1.8 here, which is the city of Keller portion, not TERS. And then the TERS component, 3,770,000. Those sum... to the 5618, and based on a 30-year time frame, averages 187 a year for just the residential portion. This does not include the commercial benefit.

I'm not following the numbers, to be honest with you, sir.

Well, so this column here, the estimated property tax revenue under the proposed zoning, this is the gross dollars, based on Launch's estimate, for the different taxing districts. Follow me there? Yeah. The city gets the blue. The 4.6 and the 9.5. 9.5 from the TERS component and 4.6 from just the straight up existing city tax.

Yeah. So for whatever, I played with a little bit of numbers while we were talking. just to kind of put some things in perspective. So 55 lots? Correct. And I just did an average from the minimum of 1.25 to 1.5.

Yeah, Preston, do you know what the average that they used? We gave them that range. Did they use a specific average? We gave them that range, but we told them it would probably be about $200,000 roughly plus or minus on options on average, so they probably used about 1.4, 1.5-ish.

Okay.

Like that.

round up a little bit there. So I think as we stare at that part of our, and I apologize for being the numbers nerd here, but I've got to kind of.

We would lose like, was it 12 lots on the SF-36? 19 fewer? 29 total. 29 total, so you're coming in 29 to 55, and the price would be the same.

I'm really just looking at that total TERS amount. And the reason I think it's worth clarifying, so the way the TERS would work, you have it doubling what the city would collect. Really, the city would collect half of, half would go to the city, half would go to the TERS, and then we get half of the county in the college district. On a yearly basis, based on current tax rates, that would be a total levy to the TERS of $225,000. with another $110,000 going to the city for a total levy of $336,000. If you multiply that by 30 years, that would be about $6.7 million going into the TURs with another $3.3 million to the city.

$3.3 million based on just using $1.4 million for the house?

Again, using 55 lots at $1.4 million.

If you divide that by 30, what's your number?

The annual number is $336,000 to the TURs. Sorry 336 in total to the city and levy between the tears and what goes to the city, okay?

So I guess what I'm trying to follow is which what's the difference between your number and the launch number here?

Well you have 18 million Which because there's a double count that not there's not the nine millions not going to exist Mm-hmm

We just pulled this straight from the launch study. This is what they said would be the TERS component of the 18. So you're saying that they're double counting?

Correct. The way the city of Keller's TERS works, it's a 50% TERS. So we get 50% of Tarrant County College District and city. So the city of Keller and the TERS number two should match.

Those are the exact same numbers. So what should that number be? So instead of the 95, let me first ask this question. Is the 46 a good number for you? Is the 4650?

I can get to high enough value you would get there, but I have right now, that should actually be 3.3 because it's 50%, not 4.6. Now, I want to point out, I don't have the commercial value in there, and you have a commercial component as well, so that may be helping that. I just want to make sure that we're clear about what the financial impact is as it compares to the two.

The way it was explained to us from the launch is that their number is only the residential, did not factor into commercial. So that would be, that's what they represent to us.

So Aaron, just so I'm understanding the numbers, are you saying that over the next 30 years it would be, if I heard you correctly, roughly $110,000 per year? contributed to the TURS fund, which would be then reinvestable in the TURS district?

For the 225 to the TURS and another 110 to the general fund, or to the rest of the city.

The 225 is the rest of the city? Other way, you're flipping it. I flipped it? So 110 to the rest of the city, because that's the base amount. That's the base amount.

Oh, so 225 over 30. That's correct, because we had the benefit in the TURS of the county and the college district. So between those three entities, we collect 225 per year. Okay. And then, because it's a 50-50 split, 50 is in the TERS, and then 50 is going to the city. That's another 110 to the city.

And so then that extra 6.7, 6.75 million going into the TERS, is that the difference between current ad valorem and future projection? Yes, because everything here would be future.

Okay.

Thank you.

I apologize. I got to own it. I'm not a tourist guy, but we commissioned these guys to do something. But you're going to know the number better than me. So whatever your number is. So I guess the only thing I ask is just press me. Can you write this down? Make sure I just don't, because I don't have a pen right here.

Correct. And I just, I'm looking at.

I don't have other assumptions at my disposal. I apologize. You're good. Let's go with your number so we make sure we're not.

It's always good to sharpen the pencils, but the main reason I ask is because we've cast a vision as a city for economic development and redevelopment along the 377 corridor, which is why I believe you were talking about, Adam. So, you know, the difference between 7.5 and 6.75, I get it. I just want to make sure we were doing our due diligence as a city, which we have. you know, and kind of talking through those numbers. But I think the bigger picture for me is that we're talking about an area where we've cast a vision for vibrant development, excuse me. So there are some other questions. Councilwoman Brennan.

All right. I didn't realize I was next. I thought Mr. Deberly was going to be next.

Oh, yeah, we can recognize the mayor pro tem. We'll call him out.

You pushed your button before me.

That's fine. Sorry. I was having to check on my son. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Wiley, I liked what you said. I thought that was very eloquent. I'm not going to repeat everything. I agree with a lot of what you said. I do appreciate the property owner and the developer, just to give them some credit on a couple things. I appreciate them trying to do an iterative approach to work with council members and Division of Citizens to go from, I think it was 5,000 square feet. Even if it isn't to where I think it should be, y'all are making definitely an effort. Appreciate that. The masonry walls, those cost a lot of money. And y'all are definitely focusing on quality, which is a North Star for me, and as the mayor was speaking about for him as well. and also the TERS, which is really important for the city of Keller. It's not a sole reason we should vote for anything, but it is an important component, and I appreciate you all taking that into account as well. And for those listening from some of the comments, I just want to let you know, council doesn't choose what comes before us. You know, property owner or developer can bring something to us, and we vote on it. So we don't always get to choose what we vote on, but we let you all, you know, we represent the will of the people on that point. But other than that, I just wanted to say at this point, it's not, I appreciate what they've done, but it's not where I'm comfortable with. I'm with Councilman Wally. I'm not going to repeat all those points, but I appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Mayor Pro Tem. Councilwoman Brennan, unless you want to pick on Dr. Ankleve. We could do that.

No, I won't. I don't want to happen there. Sorry about that. I'll have to say, I came here tonight really not sure what I wanted to do. I wanted to wait until I heard from people in the community. because I'm not here for just what do I think. I'm here for what everybody in the city thinks. And while I recognize that there's a lot of support in the community that's around this land, that's really important. And I appreciate the family that's been on this land for what, a century or something? trying to get it developed in a quality way, and you approve of this development. Those are very important to me. I have been inundated with 140-something emails to the contrary from people that live, yeah, they don't live right next to where this land is going to be. They live all over the city. Yes, some of them, a lot of them probably, I think there was a number, something like 85% come from homes that are smaller than what they're objecting to here. I get that, but that's kind of not the point. And I think I was kind of thought about my day-to-day. I was driving around running errands and, you know, South Lake and North Richland Hills and Watauga, and I noticed how all of a sudden, I mean, I've lived in Keller 25 years. The density has just really just, skyrocketed in those communities. And it's not because they just approved it all at once. It's a development here and a development there and a development here and a development there. And over time, before you know it, you have all this land taken up by houses that are fairly close together. And I think what I like about Keller and what most people seem like about Keller is that we're still kind of trying to keep our country feel, our rural feel. This is a very large parcel of land. It's going to be a lot of houses. And I've got to listen to what the people in Keller want. I would say if it was up to me, Karen Brennan I think this is a you've done a lot of really good work at this development closer to being in the box and and that's favorable to me and I appreciate the surrounding residents and their favorability that's important to me but at the end of the day I have to go with what the majority of the people in this city are telling me and that is you know this many homes with the lots as small as they are is not what they want. So I am not going to be supporting this community. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Thanks, Councilman Brennan. Dr. Rancliffe.

Thank you, Mayor. I think I want to echo quite a few of the comments that have been made by my colleagues up here. I want to thank the developer. I think the product has evolved and is probably in a much better place than it was a few months ago, and certainly it's in a much better place than what had been proposed in prior attempts to develop this property. But a good friend of mine said that all feedback is good feedback. And so I appreciate folks who reached out, whether that be by email, in support or not in support. I also appreciate the homeowners that gave me some time on a Sunday to kind of share their perspective about that property and what it might look like. You know, they didn't have to do that. And I had an opportunity to go both into Greenway as well as Hermanson Farms. And I don't think the residents are opposed to development, but what I think they want is to make sure that the development fits with what Keller is. And Keller is a very unique place. It's got that hometown feel. I mean, we have trees in our logo, right? Wide open spaces. And I think for this project, for me, it doesn't fit that yet. I think it's moving in that direction, but certainly it's not there. And when we look at the lot sizes, while there are some that have increased, when you look at them, there's a large percentage that are small, that are less than 20,000 square feet. And I think at the end of the day, we owe our residents... You know, we have heard from them through multiple elections that they want those wide open spaces. They want Keller to keep that small town charm. And I don't think that this proposed project does that for me. I appreciate what the developers have done. I appreciate the work they put into it. But I think we can do better with that property.

All right. Thanks, Councilman Rankleve. Councilman Will. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I'm just trying to decide where to start. I think I would be more comfortable with this project. And as I said in my email to the developer in my response was, if the zoning mirrored the Greenway Park development to the north, I am also disappointed to see that only four homes were removed since the last time it came before us. I have concerns about the gate between the two neighborhoods. Unless this was going to be a gated neighborhood, I don't see a reason to have that gate, except that it was horse traded to try to get people to remove their opposition to the project. The size of the home on the smaller lot concerns me. Having a 2,600-square-foot home rather than the 2,000-square-foot home, which is what the zoning requires, concerns me. Again, I understand there are some people in our community who are a... SF 36 purist, it has to be SF 36 or nothing. I'm not necessarily one of those people. I approved the Armstrong Hills development last year, and that's going to be the nicest neighborhood in the city of Keller when it is completed. And we did downzone because downzoning made sense in that circumstance. Again, I'm not... I think that this development can be there. I understand that government is making sausage. Nobody gets 100% of what they want, but I just don't think we're there yet. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Councilman. Well, Stan, I do have a quick question, and then I'll offer some remarks. If just procedurally, if we make a motion to deny and then the application fails, what options does the applicant have to come back?

Well, they can start over at P&Z and come back with a new application.

Okay, so if they decided to come back with the same exact application from a due process perspective, they would be entitled to do that?

Yes, we don't have any type of, Waiting period. Race period or waiting period. Anyone that's denied technically for a zoning entitlement, whether it's a zoning change, a PD, an SUP, they could go home tonight, get on our online portal, and submit the exact same application. Obviously, almost no one does that, but we don't have a wait period where they would have to wait to come back for any type of iteration of the project.

Okay. Okay. No, I just wanted to make sure I clarified the process and procedure. Mr. Rector and I were having a conversation, making sure we clarify that. You know, I wouldn't want to see someone get feedback and then bring the exact same thing back either, but just from a process perspective, wanted to get it right. So, I mean, I think counsel's spoken tonight. I'll tell you where I'm at. I've never been afraid to kind of stick out. Political convenience has never been something that's as important to me, and I'm not saying that it is to counsel, but just for me, when I look at it, based on the facts, you know, I did count, you know, a significant amount of email traffic opposed. I do believe, to Dr. Rankley's point, all good feedback is good feedback, and I also saw substantial support for the project in the room. I'm kind of more where Mr. Marcus is at, actually. I think the transition from Harmonson to Greenway, you know, on that vote, which I think went through unanimously, a lot of us were on council at the time, some of us weren't, to go from low density to medium density, the reason we did that is because we believed in the quality of the development. So to your point, Councilman Will, I do agree that from a vision perspective for this city, we can't take a one-size-fits-all approach. I think that would be deleterious. I don't think that's the vision of our residents. They've spoken loudly in that regard election after election. And so that's why one of the reasons, because as Council Member Whatley says very well, this is the people's seat. And they've never given us a mandate to take a one-size-fits-all approach. When I look at the factors, when I look at the feedback from the neighbors closest to the project, they're almost unanimous. I mean, they do a better job getting behind this project than my family does picking out dinner every night. And that's not a joke. That's true. Number two, when I look at the surrounding communities, I agree that we shouldn't just make changes for the sake of compatibility, but I do think it's an important factor that we look at the impact that a proposal has on neighboring properties. I wouldn't want to change the character of a neighborhood by going to SF 8.4 in this spot, for example. And so that's why I appreciate the work that... the team has done and the property owner has done to bring this forward. I know it's been a long process. And I also look at it from a quality perspective. What are they actually proposing? What's the valuation potential in the house? What does the market dictate? The tax increment refinancing zone is an important vision for this city. And by my estimates tonight, if this vote goes the way I suspect it will, That's about a $70 million to $100 million difference between what would be contributed to the TERS, or at least from an ad valorem perspective. $70 million to $100 million ad valorem, and then roughly $6.75 million in contributions to the TERS fund. And we use those monies to keep up with... Infrastructure, very important infrastructure, comes out of the general fund. We pay our police and fire. And so they go to important priorities in this city. And so when I look at all the factors, I actually like the project. It's not perfect. It's not necessarily how I would design it myself. But I'm not in that business. We receive the applications that they come. So I suspect there's a motion to deny. I'll be voting in support of it because I actually do think that the application fits well within the vision for that community. Some might call that politically naive, right, when you have six folks that have spoken, their perspectives, but I actually think it maintains our small-town feel very well relative to other applications that we've seen. So with that, unless there's any other remarks, let's... One more thing, and I'm going to ask my colleagues for this, because this is probably, in addition to projects like this, the most important thing. I think we're going to have to do, myself included, do a really good job defining what hometown feel and what our vision is, especially along the 377 corridor. Because these folks come in, they use their time, they use their energy, and if the answer is just no, we're not going to approve anything except for SF-36, then we should probably just tell them that on the front end. As a matter of courtesy. If our vision is case by case and quality as a group, then I think, again, myself included, we've got to be really specific about what those factors are. So that way we're making sure that when folks come in and do these applications, they're getting feedback from us. And I'd welcome that discussion as a council defining that vision. I think it's really important for the redevelopment along the 377 corridor. This is how a vision gets built. We all the time sit up here and talk about how there's no vision, there's no vision, there's no vision. Well, there is a vision. And the vision is for vibrant development. And whether or not a specific application fits that vibrancy, it's on us. We're elected to help build that. So I appreciate everyone's comments tonight. Thank you to the property owners and to the applicant for coming in. And I just wanted to put that out there so we could hopefully have a very constructive discussion about what development looks like now and into the future. So with that, I'll go ahead and recognize the motion. Councilman Watley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Motion to deny G3. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Mayor Pro Tem.

Yeah, real quick. Just I'm going to say to the applicant, you've had a lot of feedback tonight. You've taken a lot of that. As the mayor was saying, you can come back. I do think there is some good discussion we have on the 377 corridor. And also for me, this isn't a political decision at all. It's what's best for the city, right and wrong. And all of us on council voted for different densities off 377. But my advice to you all is to listen to the feedback you got here. I think there's a lot of really good feedback that you guys can take and possibly come back to maybe do something that fits the will of the citizenry. With that, I second, thank you.

All right, we have a motion to deny item G3, and we have a second from the mayor pro tem. Let's take a vote. All right, so that application is denied by a vote of six to one. Next up, we have item G4. Sarah, do we need to take action on G4, the future land use plan? It is a public hearing, so I can open and close the public hearing.

I think Stan's saying yes, so I'm going to say yes as well.

Well, Stan says yes. We can ignore him, but Sarah says yes, and we'll listen. I'm joking, Stan. All right, item G4. Consider a resolution approving a future land use plan amendment from mixed use, medium density, single family, 15,000 to 35,999 square foot lots. You just want to hear me read this. And low density, single family, 36,000 square foot and above to retail, commercial, and medium density, single family, 15,000 to 36,000 lots. For 39.38 acres legally described as situated in the Richard F. Allen survey, abstract 29, tract 4D, and being all of lot 1, block 1 of Harbinson Acres addition, and being all of lot 1, block A of Perigo Place addition, Perigo, excuse me, and being all that certain called .364 acre right-of-way dedication shown on said plat of Perigo Place located on the east side of North Main Street, approximately $300,000. FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE PARK AVENUE AND NORTH MAIN STREET INTERSECTION AND ADDRESSED AT 1004 AND 1008 NORTH MAIN STREET. PRESTON CROWS, CORPORATE COMPANIES APPLICANT, SUZANNE STRANEN AND ANNE BURFETT ARE THE OWNERS. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND USE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCRETION HERE AND NOT HEAR THE PRESENTATION, BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME. All right, seeing no one. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move we close the public hearing on item G4. All right, thank you, sir. Councilman Will. I second. All right, there's a motion and a second. All right, public hearing is closed. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to deny G4. Councilman Whatley. Second. All right, motion and a second. Let's vote. All right. So G4 is denied. New business. Only a few items. You guys are doing great. H1, consider a resolution approving a final plat for lot 1R of the Burbine Addition subdivision being 2.448 acres located approximately 3,500 feet north of the intersection of Indian Old Trail and Shady Grove Road being a replat of lots 1A and 1B of the Burbine Addition subdivisions on single-family 36,000-square-foot lots. addressed 9297 and 9299 at Indian Old Trail. Curtis Young is the applicant. Susan Quinn, that's my mother-in-law's name, but no relation here, is the owner. Plat 2605-0008.

Thank you, Mayor. I have the aerial and zoning maps. Subject property is zoned SF36. A little background on the request. The subject property was platted in 1984 as lots 1A and 1B of the Burbine edition. You can see that plat there on the right. As part of the original platting, a 40-foot right-of-way was dedicated along the northern portion of both lots for a future public street connection. At the time of plat approval, the City of Keller entered into a street-use license agreement with the property owners, which would allow them to use the dedicated right-of-way area for private driveways serving both lots. The agreement stipulated that the private use of the right-of-way could continue until until the city determined that construction of the public street was necessary. The applicant is now requesting approval of a replat to combine lots 1A and 1B into a single lot for single-family residential use. The replat also proposes abandonment of the existing 40-foot right-of-way dedication, which is no longer needed to serve a future street connection, and approval of the replat would eliminate the dedicated right-of-way and terminate the associated use license. The property is zoned SF 36 and designated low density single family on the future land use plan. The properties to the north and east are designated high density single family. To the south, low density and high density single family. And to the west, low density single family. Drainage and utility plans were not required for this application as determined by city staff. The proposed replat does not create additional lots, and adequate utility easements are already in place to serve the property. This application does not require a public hearing, but the public did have the opportunity to speak at persons to be heard. And the City Council has the following option when considering a final plat with no variances, which is to approve as submitted. If you have any questions, staff and the applicant are available.

Look at all those options. Thanks, Calvin. Really appreciate it. All right. Well, with that, this is not a public hearing, so I don't have any questions. Colleagues, go ahead and recognize the motion. Councilman Whatley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Motion to approve H1. All right. Motion to approve H1. Councilman Armstrong. Second motion. All right. This motion is second. Let's vote. Curtis, 7-0. Thanks for being here tonight. You know, you should probably bring more applications with one option on it. I'm just joking. We'll see you. Yes, sir. Item H2, it's a public hearing to consider an ordinance approving a specific use permit for a 2,385-square-foot accessory structure on approximately 2.067 acres located approximately 125 feet west of the intersection of Winter Drive and North Pearson Lane, legally described as Block 2, Lot 10 of the Cross Timbers. Acres addition, zoned single family, 36,000 square foot lot size or greater and addressed in 1920 Winter Drive. John Atwood is the applicant. Gary and Kathy Engesser are the owners.

Thank you, Mayor. I have the aerial and zoning maps. Subject property is zoned SF36. The applicant is requesting an SUP to construct a 2,385 square foot detached garage for storage and personal work on privately owned vehicles. as well as general residential storage and as a hobby workspace. In SF-36, an SUP is required for accessory structures that exceed 1,200 square feet in total size. There are two SUP triggers for the proposed structure to exceed 1,200 square feet in the SF-36 zoning district and for the height of the structure to exceed an average of 15 feet tall. The concept plan submitted by the applicant indicates that the structure will be located behind the main residence. The applicant intends to meet all other UDC guidelines and setbacks for the SF 36 zoning district. The elevations provided by the applicant indicate a masonry facade with concrete tile roofing and a metal and glass garage door. The average height of the structure will be 19 feet and 2 inches. Look at the floor plan provided by the applicant which indicates that the structure will include a garage Recreation room shop area restroom and covered patio All existing structures on the property have been demolished The applicant has submitted building permits for both the primary residence and an additional accessory structure The primary residence is proposed to be approximately thirteen thousand three hundred and seven square feet Property zoned SF36 and designated low density single family on the city's future land use plan, as are all surrounding properties. On May 28th, the city mailed 16 letters of notification to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and staff has received no public feedback in response. Again, the request is an SUP for a 2,385 square foot accessory structure to exceed 1,200 square feet in the SF 36 zoning district, and then an SUP for the height to exceed an average of 15 feet tall at 19 feet and 2 inches. The June 9, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the request as presented. Section 8.02 of the UDC states that when considering an SUP request, the commission and council shall consider the following factors. The use is harmonious and compatible with surrounding existing uses or proposed uses. The activities requested by the applicant are normally associated with the permitted uses in the base district. The nature of the use is reasonable and appropriate in the immediate area. Any negative impact on the surrounding area has been mitigated and that any additional conditions specified ensure that the intent of the district purposes are being upheld. City Council has the following options when considering this request. Approve as submitted, approve with modified or additional conditions, table or deny. If you have any questions, staff and the applicant are available. Thanks, Calvin.

All right, this is a public hearing, so would anyone from the public like to speak on this item? All right, seeing none, we'll recognize a motion. Motion, Councilman Armstrong.

Motion to close.

Motion to close the public hearing. All right, Councilman Brennan.

I second, Councilman Armstrong.

All right, vote to close public hearing. Public hearing is closed. All right, any questions for staff or the applicant? Is the applicant here? Thanks for being here tonight. Looks like a pretty nice structure. I did have one question. How does it comport with your existing dwelling?

Thank you. John Atwood, Trophy Club. Your question? Can you repeat your question again? Yeah, how does it compare to the existing structures on the property? All three structures were designed architecturally to be exactly the same. The roof, the stone, the windows and doors.

Okay, awesome. That was my question. Councilman Whatley? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, my only... There goes my microphone head. My only question was, I'm assuming, based on the main structure... that the 19 feet, the main structure is obviously going to be much taller.

The house structure is taller, so it just kind of all correlates to look similar. Yes, sir.

Awesome. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Councilman Wool. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My question is for staff. Your presentation today, that we saw had a floor plan on it that is not in the attachment in Granicus. Can you flip back to that just so I can see it real quick?

It's right here. Yes, and that floor plan should be included in the applicant packet. Maybe I'll have to take a second look, but that should be included.

That's all I wanted to see. I just, I thought maybe that was a kitchen and I was going to ask why there is a kitchen, but there's no kitchen. So I'm good. Thank you.

All right. Those are all the questions. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to approve item H2 as presented. All right. Thank you, sir. Dr. Rankleaf. I second. All right. Motion to second. Let's vote. All right. This one's approved. 7-0. All right. Mr. Atwood, thanks for coming in this evening and sticking around. Yes, sir. All right, H3, public hearing to consider a resolution approving a final plat with variances for lots 1, 2, and 3, block A of the Hill Family Addition subdivision being 2.784 acres located at the northeast corner of the Normal Lane and Johnson Road intersection being a replat of lots 1 and 2, block 2 of the Harvill's Addition subdivision, zone single family 36,000 minimum square foot lots and address 600 Normal Lane. David Lewis is the applicant. Cody Hill, the owner.

Thank you, Mayor. At the aerial and zoning maps, subject property is zoned SF36. The subject property was platted in 1959. There is currently one single family home and three accessory structures on the lot. The purpose of this replat is to subdivide the existing 2.78 acre property into three single family residential lots. The application includes variance requests to section 8.04 of the UDC. All lots do meet the minimum lot size of 36,000 square feet. The property is zoned SF 36 and designated medium density single family on the future land use plan. The properties to the north are zoned SF 36 and designated medium density single family. To the south, SF 8.4 and some multifamily and then high density single family and mixed use. to the east SF 12 and designated high density single family and then to the west zone SF 36 with the KISD overlay and then designated semi-public. The applicant has provided the drainage plan supporting this application that meet the requirements of the UDC. A utility plan has not been submitted with this application. The utility plans are to be submitted with the building permits at the time of development. The applicant has provided a written statement indicating that both the property owner and home builder have been made aware of this requirement, and a note has been included on the plat sheet stating that builders will be responsible for extending utilities to the newly created lots. The minimum lot depth is 200 feet in the SF 36 zoning district. The applicant has requested... Variances for lot depth for each lot. For lot one, 182.82 feet. Lot two, 183.86 feet. And then lot three, 184.96 feet, all in lieu of the 200-foot depth requirement. And the application meets all other requirements in the SF36 zoning district. On May 28th, the city mailed 38 letters of notification to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and staff has received No public feedback in response. June 9th, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner has unanimously recommended approval of the final plat with variances as presented. Section 2.07A2 of the UDC states that when considering a final plat with variances, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors. that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other properties in the area, that the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area in accordance with provisions of this code, that the granting of the variance will not constitute a violation of any other valid ordinance of the City of Keller, and that strict compliance with the regulations and or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a greater extent by the alternative proposal. City Council has the following options when considering a final plot with variances. Approve as submitted, approve with modified or additional conditions, table or deny. Once again, staff and the applicant are available.

All right, thanks Calvin. This one's also a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on H3? Seeing none, I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem?

I second.

All right, let's vote. Public hearing is closed. All right, any questions for the applicant or staff on this one? Councilman Whatley?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is the applicant here? Would you come up, please? How are you, sir? Good, sir. How are you? I'm good. I'm just assuming, I had to ask, because currently the address is 600 Norma Lane. Yes, sir. When you develop the three lots, I'm assuming the entrance for all three will be off of Johnson Road? Yes, sir. Okay. I didn't know if the one to the west would be off of... Norma or if they'll all be off Johnson. Yeah, I believe the current plan is for Johnson Road. All Johnson Road? Yes. All right, that was really my only question. Thank you very much. All right, thank you.

All right, Mayor Pro Tem Doberly, did you have a question? That was literally my question. I'm good, sorry. All right, I'll make a motion to approve item H3, Councilwoman Brennan.

And I second that motion.

All right, let's take a vote. All right. Page 3 is approved. Page 4, consider an ordinance approving a specific use permit to allow office space in excess of 1,200 square feet on the first floor in OTK, Old Town Keller, on approximately 0.15 acres, located approximately 135 feet northwest of the intersection of Olive Street and South Main Street, legally described as Block 5, Lot 3 of the Keller City Addition, zoned Old Town Keller and addressed 118 Olive Street. James Henderson, applicant, Bluegrass Legacy Holdings, LLC is the owner. Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Council. Aerial and zoning maps are before you. Subject property is zoned Old Town Keller. Bluegrass Legacy this evening is requesting an SUP to operate office space in excess of 1,200 square feet on the first floor in Old Town Keller Zoning District. The following timeline provides a brief history of the previous tenants for the lease space at this location. Business currently operates the property and has been there since 2021. They offer a multitude of financial services. Business employees are four to five and anticipate continued growth, and their hours of operation are shown before you. The existing size of the space is approximately 1,045 square feet, and they are requesting to add approximately 1,059 square feet of additional space to the property. That space will consist of three offices, storage room, restroom, and covered porch. UDC parking requirement for office is one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area, bringing the total requirement for this applicant to seven spaces. There are nine parking spaces adjacent to the property with additional public parking across the street on Olive and west along Lamar Street. Subject property is zoned Old Town Keller and designated mixed use on the future land use plan, as are all the properties surrounding it. On May 28th, the city mailed out 16 letters of notification for this public hearing, and staff has not received any public feedback regarding this request. At the June 9th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, commissioners unanimously recommended approval of this SUP request. Section 8.02 F2A of the UDC states that when considering an SEP request, the City Council shall consider the following factors, that the use is harmonious and compatible with surrounding existing uses, the activities requested by the applicant are normally associated with the permitted uses in the base district, the nature of the use is reasonable and appropriate, any negative impact on the surrounding area has been mitigated, and that any additional conditions specified ensure that the intent of the district purposes are being upheld. Again, the request before you this evening is an SUP to allow office space in excess of 1,200 square feet on the first floor in Old Town Keller. City Council has the following options when considering an SUP request. Approve, approve with modifications, table, or deny. And staff and the applicant are here for any questions.

Thanks, Ethan. This is a public hearing. Would anyone from the public like to comment? All right. Motion to close the public hearing by Councilman Watley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Motion to close. Dr. Rankleaf.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I second.

All right. Motion to second to close the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Any questions for the applicant? Kyle, thanks for being here tonight. It's your time.

Mr. Mayor, I have one question. I have to ask because they listed it. What is the funky monkey? Yeah, I know, but it was listed. I just, you know, for context, I'm just curious. Do you know? Appreciate it.

Great question. Well, I'll just briefly say we have this one in the next item. Thanks for what you're doing to, you know, bring more vibrancy to Old Town Keller. I know you've put a lot into the process and sat through. I mean, we're only an hour, two and a half of this meeting. So you've been here and we appreciate it. So we do have a motion. Councilwoman Brennan.

I have a motion to approve item number four.

All right.

Motion to approve H4. Mayor Pro Temp. I second. Thank you for investing in Keller. All right. Let's vote.

All right. So the specific use permit is approved. Kyle? Let's see if your good fortune continues to the next item, H5. Consider a resolution approving a Chapter 380 economic development agreement pursuant to Chapter 380 of the Texas Local Government Code and pursuant to the city's economic development policy with Robert Kyle Gabbhart, owner of Bluegrass Legacy Equipment, Group, located at 118 West Olive Street, Keller, Texas, on 6248, for a City of Keller Facade Improvement Grant.

All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Good evening. Tonight, we will be presenting a Facade Improvement Grant for 118 West Olive Street. 118 West Olive Street is located in Old Town Keller. The business here is Bluegrass Legacy Group, a financial planning business, and Kyle Gaphart is the applicant and property owner. The total project cost is $38,900, and he is requesting the maximum grant request of $10,000. The overall estimated project cost is $173,000. Here's an aerial view of the property. Here is a before street photo. The applicant plans to remove existing exterior materials and install premium board and batten siding construct a seven foot deep wraparound porch, install energy efficient commercial windows and entry doors, install decorative and security lighting fixtures, and complete exterior paint and sealant. And then here's just a few additional photos of both sides of the property. And then we wanted to provide some close-up photos as well, so on the left you can see the siding and then the middle of the paint, and then as well as the porch condition on the right. Here is a conceptual rendering that reflects the proposed improvements. Exact colors to be used for trim, base of the house, and accent doors are here on the right. Please note that landscaping is reflected in this rendering, but it is conceptual. and landscaping will be completed at a later date just outside of the facade improvement grant and their overall expansion project. And then this wasn't included in the rendering, so we did want to provide this example of their decorative and security lighting fixtures. And then here is a cost breakdown estimate provided by their contractor, Kingdom Construction. Full list, totaling $38,900, and again, they're asking for the maximum grant amount of $10,000. Here's the site plan. This is just in reference to H4, their SEP request for their expansion. And then the development grant budget for FY26 is $35,000. The remaining grant funds we currently have are $13,060.50. This reflects reimbursements to be paid this fiscal year, including the prior fiscal year commitments. And then additional funding capacity is available through the economic development incentive budget, if needed and approved by you all council. And just per our policy, section four, these are the considerations. I won't read them all, but they are here. Council has the following options when considering a request for the grant improvement. Approve as presented, approve with changes and or conditions, table the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose, or deny. On June 15th, the Economic Development Board did recommend approval for this item. And then, as you know, the applicant is here and staff is here for questions.

Thanks, Melanie. I did have, actually, go ahead, Councilman Wally.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Melanie, when do we, at what time in the year do we replenish the funds in the facade improvement grant?

October 1, so that's coming up soon. Most likely, this would be the last grant for this fiscal year. I just don't think there would be time when we haven't had anybody else apply.

All right, so the next one is October. October 1, mm-hmm. And then we, another 35,000.

Another 35, mm-hmm. Okay. Yes.

All right. Awesome. Is the applicant, oh, there was the applicant, yeah. I appreciate the fact that you, I have been, I've approved and denied many facade grant improvements. I appreciate the fact that you have skin in the game and you're putting money in the investment. Thank you very much.

I might only say this to Kyle. I just appreciate you took your building and converted it into a residential home on that slide. That was amazing. The lighting made the whole building stand up. I'm just joking, man. I did have a serious question for staff. Sarah, we've talked a little bit about economic development board about this process changing. I think from a paperwork perspective, I actually hope, and I don't know if anyone here agrees, I hope from a paperwork perspective this process does change. Do we have an update on that we could share with council tonight so that way they can think on it for the next month?

Yes, you'll be hearing more about that in August. We're still working through brainstorming, looking at what other cities have done, how to present it to you all, to the Economic Development Board, but we're definitely working on it.

Okay, so just a heads up, that's probably coming. What we're looking to do is find more streamlined ways, more efficient ways to get to a similar spot. And right now, because of the current process, it's just taking a lot of time from our staff. And so just heads up, that'll be coming in August.

Mayor, if I may, we had a very extensive conversation at our Economic Development Board meeting. I think it went over an hour. So we got a lot of really good ideas from... all the different members, and we're taking a lot of that feedback to figure out how to work through this.

It was an hour, wasn't it?

It was a little over an hour. It was a great discussion.

It was. Well, good job facilitating it. Thanks, Anna. So I do have a motion to approve item H5, Kyle's bad humor aside. Councilman Armstrong? Second the motion, please. All right, we have a motion to approve H5 in a second. All right, that passes unanimously. Kyle, seriously, thanks for bringing this forward. Great updates, and congrats. Thanks for sticking with us tonight. Have a good evening. All right, H6. I think we'll vote separately, but kind of hear both the presentation for H6 and H7 at once. Is that right, Marsha and Aaron?

Yes, sir. Glad you mentioned that because I was going to request that. It'd be easier just to go through both of them together. So as you recall, during the June 16th council meeting, the council did approve that we move forward with CWD as our continued solid waste provider. And we have prepared a resolution for you as well as amending the code of ordinance to take action and moving forward with that. A quick reminder on the timeline. We began this process back in February. Our Solid Waste Committee was appointed. That includes Council Member Brennan and Council Member Wally, which they did a great job. And I do thank them for their work on that. And as well, our staff, including Brian Rubble and Ryan Lee, who did a lot of heavy lifting on this project. So thank you for the hard work on that. On March the 19th, we discussed the RFP terms. April 9th, the RFP was actually issued. April 22nd, we had a pre-proposal conference with six attendees. May the 19th, we received five proposals. On May the 28th, the committee reviewed, scored, and invited two to come back with their best and final offer. Those were received on June the 8th and brought forward for council on June 16th, in which you also saw the vendors' presentations and made your decision to move forward with CWD. As you may recall, our goal was to keep services the same. We have a very high rating from our citizens and the citizen survey on our solid waste. and the goal was to keep everything as it is, as far as our core services, our customer-friendly programs and accountability, so that was the task at hand. As far as rates impacted, as a reminder, for your residential rate, there will be an increase of about $2.81 a month, that's about 14%, and about 15% for your commercial customers. The annual agreement is for five years and there will be an option to renew. So the second item to this is an actual ordinance. The franchise agreement is tied into the ordinance, so we also, in addition to amending it, try to clean it up a little bit so in the future it would be easier for council and staff when we have to bring this item forward to you. So as it currently stands, there's 26 sections in this chapter of the code. We have condensed that. separated, the code, the rules, the laws, the code enforcement tools, and then the actual details of the agreement, such as rates, the billing, customer service reporting, insurance, insurance bonds, et cetera, as part of the agreement. So what the code looks like now in the proposal is that it references franchise agreement when it comes to these details. Rather than having to go in there and change it every single time, we can just reference

new franchise agreement that's approved by the council and that is the summary of h6 and h7 for your review thanks marcia all right so someone else wants to make a motion councilman brennan happy to second your motion on item h6 yeah i'd like to approve item h6 we can do them together can't we stand and h7 Why? We can do them together. You always tell me this. It's an argument. It's the only thing I can think of to argue with Stan on for six years. It's like a... Anyway. All right. H6. Fine, Stan. Got it. I'll second. All right. H6 is approved. Let's consider item H7. Councilman Whatley. Motion to approve item H7. Councilman Radcliffe.

I second. I second.

And that's approved. Robert, just want to say thanks for the partnership between the city and CWD. Thanks for going through the process. We're looking forward to the next five years. And also thank you personally for sticking around this evening and what you do for our city, you and the entire team. We really appreciate it. And if there's ever anything you guys need from us, reach out. And as you know, we'll certainly do the same. So appreciate you being here. All right, last item. I don't think there's any action to be taken, but we are required to have a public hearing for the fiscal year 26-27 Keller Development Corporation budget. Jordan, how are you?

I'm good. How are you, Mayor and Council?

Thanks for being here.

Good evening. So I'm here to present the FY 26-27 Keller Development Corporation proposed budget and then have some more future planned budget items as well.

So you're just going to throw the title up there, Interim Parks and Recreation Director, and not, you know, okay. Congratulations, by the way.

The pleasure to meet you all. Interim Parks and Rec Director Jordan Dawson here. Thank you so much. So we're going to go over our FY25-26 projects that we have been, that was on the budget for this year. So the first one is the public water feature at the Keller Sports Park. The second one is the parking lot improvements at Pad D. Third is the trail system expansion. Fourth is the playground shade structure at Chase Oaks. Next is the irrigation central control system phase one. And then lastly is the equipment replacement totaling $2.3 million. So the first one is a public water feature. It's a design and construction of water feature. It's to enhance the entry feature to the Keller Sports Park. Although not a splash pad, it will be used like one. It is currently under construction and expected completion as the fourth quarter of FY25-26. Estimated cost is $1.1 million. This was the conception design plan. And this is what it looks like today. And then this was the surrounding landscape idea. And then these are the pictures of the landscape taken today. Those picnic benches are brand new in the top right corner. They were still working on them today when I took the pictures, so they just got added in this week.

That's awesome. Any update on when it's going to be open?

Very soon. So we have submitted the paperwork to Tarrant County to get final approval. So Tarrant County has to come out and inspect it and give final approval to open any public water feature or water park. so we're waiting on that we're waiting on one more sign to go up with the legality rules regulation hours of operation and once that goes up tarrant county will be able to come out and approve it louis our aquatic supervisor is expecting tarrant county to take five to seven days to approve it so it's pretty quick turnaround time once we have all all of our signs up and ready to go

Okay, and then we'll maybe do an event when it's open.

Yes, sir. So we can do some sort of ribbon cutting or some ice cream pop-up, serve ice cream in our remaining helmets.

After tonight's meeting, I'm just going to get a big old tarp and we're going to send Shannon down it.

Yeah, slip and slide into the water feature.

Exactly. No, that sounds great. Thank you.

Absolutely. And we've done parking lot improvements. So the Keller Sports Park currently has nine asphalt parking lots for the associated athletic fields. Perform variable death mill to existing surface. Provide one and a half to two inch HMAC type D surface course overlay. This will complete all remaining six lots as the renovation project allows. This was completed in the second quarter of this fiscal year. Estimated cost was $508,000. Here is the layout of all the parking lots. And then this was the completed project of Pad D. Trail system expansion, it's the design and construction of new multipurpose trails, repairs of existing trails. It includes acquisition of easements, expansion of the trail system. This is to make more areas of the city accessible to trails, and it's the highest ranked existing amenity among residents on the citizen survey. The Parks and Rec Board is currently prioritizing next segments for design and construction, and this is budgeted at $450,000 annually. Next is our irrigation control system. This is to purchase and install all necessary components to control all irrigation systems from one central location. This will assist in water conservation and will reduce staff time required to adjust irrigation times. We're going to start the irrigation control system at the sports park and Keller Town Hall and Town Center. It is currently underway and its estimated completion is the fourth quarter, costing $100,000. Playground shade structure. The playground at Chase Oaks activity node had the added shade structure this year. It is the highest ranked desire from the citizen survey. It was completed in the second quarter and costed $100,000. And this is what that shade structure looks like. And then our equipment replacement this year, we replaced an aerator that was 31 years old and a vector cutter 30 years old for the sports park. We replaced a zero turn mower that was 10 years old for the sports park and then replaced two utility vehicles for the sports park and landscape crews. This was all purchased in the first quarter that costed $81,000. Any questions for the 25-26 FY budget area? So this is the recommended FY26-27 capital projects. So playground replacement for Jonathan Road Park estimated at $650,000. Synthetic turf replacement estimated at $520,000. Trail system expansion at $500,000. Restroom renovation at Johnson Road Park, $150,000. Wayfinding signage at Keller Sports Park, $100,000. Equipment replacement, $40,000, totaling $1.9 million. It was also recommended by the KDC to add one full-time staff member at $100,000 for sports park staffing. So first up is the playground replacement, a playground at Johnson Road Park. It is currently 21 years old. Estimated completion is second quarter of FY26-27. Estimated cost is $650,000. This is what the current playground looks like right now. Up next is the Synthetic Turf Replacement Fund. So this will be an annual funding to replace all synthetic turf at the Keller Sports Park. This will be seven years of funding. Replacement is estimated between 10 and 15 years, so we will put $520,000 into a budget to go towards replacement. And this is the synthetic turf at the beautiful sports park. Trail system expansion, same as in previous years, design and construction of new multipurpose trails, repairs.

Can I interject just a second on the synthetic? Just kind of a memo. I thought it was kind of cool. Just in case you hear, though, a couple people here that talk about how the FIFA ripped up all the synthetic to have natural grass because the athletes are concerned about injury, but also the chemicals and the rubber pellets in them. We use a different material in our synthetic, don't we?

Correct. So they did extensive research to not use the rubber pellets that had the chemicals. And our contractor actually went with like a wood shaving fiber almost. And it has no chemicals, no harm, no research that is based on any sort of cancers or any diseases later on.

Yeah, I just thought it was enough. example of awesome work by our you know council parks and rec board and also staff because if you don't ask the question then things happen and over 10 years that could be you know could have a negative impact on kids and customers there so anyway i want to point that out real quick any other questions on the turf

So the trail system expansion, design and construction of new multipurpose trails, repairs of existing trails includes acquisitions of easements, expansion of the trail system, and this is to make more areas of the city accessible to trails, high strength existing amenity among residents. Park boards are currently prioritizing next segments for design and construction, $500,000 annually. Next up is the restroom renovation at Johnson Road Park. This is currently 34 years old and it's estimated to be completed in the second quarter along with the playground replacement. And this estimated cost will be $150,000. And this is the restroom at Johnson Road Park. Next up is the wayfinding signage. This is gonna be at the Keller Sports Park. Estimated completion is the second quarter of FY26-27. Estimated cost is $100,000. Up next is equipment rental. So we plan to replace two utility vehicles for the sports park and landscape crews. Also purchase a stump grinder attachment for the skid steer for all crews to use. This will be purchased after October 1st and be estimated cost of $40,000. And this is the equipment planning to be replaced. Future FY projects. So this is going to be FY27-28 capital projects. Old Town Keller restroom at Bates Park. Trail system expansion. Synthetic turf replacement. We'll do a playground replacement at Bear Creek Park. It's the boat playground near Pavilion 1 and Pavilion 3. Irrigation control system phase 2. And then restroom renovation at Bear Creek Park, totaling a little over $2.4 million. FY28-29 capital projects will continue with the trail system expansion, continue the synthetic turf replacement budget. We'll need to replace a large mower at the sports park and then add a playground shade structure to Bursey Ranch and that will be the final playground that has been new that doesn't have shade structure. So after that year, all of our newer playgrounds that have been replaced in the past five or 10 years will have shade structure over it. And that total budget for that year is 1.3 million.

So how many, do you know off the top of your head, and if you don't, that's all right, how many playgrounds we would have that don't have structure after the Bercy one?

After Bercy, so, I mean, once we replace the boat, the Bear Creek Park playground boat, that will have shade structure, presumably, and then Johnson Road Park will be the last one that doesn't have shade structure as of right now. And so depending on design and what all you want, a part of Johnson Road Park playground replacement We have options to go with shade or more design with houses type playground that won't necessarily need shade, but Varsity Ranch will be the final one that won't have shade structures.

Okay, so after this one, we're pretty much done except for the- For the new one.

Yeah, for the playgrounds that haven't been replaced in the past five to 10 years. Everything else has gotten shade structures. Cool.

Is that correct?

Is that correction?

So the only one that won't, but it has natural shade, is Keller Smithfield. Correct. So we likely would not put a shade structure there, just give it all the natural, but that would be the last one to be in the replacement schedule. Got it.

I have a question real quick. Not to delay this city council meeting any longer. I know I'm tired. I noticed the trail system expansion is about 7% to 10% increase every year. Is that an inflation thing? It goes from 550 to 600 to 650. I noticed that, and I was just wondering, is there logic behind that?

I personally do not know the reason. Erin may be able to help with that answer.

We initially were doing a 10% increase, and then it was requested that we be more aggressive, so we increase it by $50,000 each year. Oh, okay. Yeah.

Thank you. I figured there was a reason.

By how much? 10%? Initially it was $10,000, but then it was requested to be, so it's actually $50,000 per year. $50,000 per year? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So yeah, that's why if you look at the current year, we're at $450,000, and that's what we get up to $600,000 in that upcoming year.

Yeah, but I don't know if this is where you're going, but to your point, Councilwoman Brennan, at some point we'll reach a threshold where we're probably increasing it too much and we need to rein it back in.

Yeah, I wonder when we start worrying about money in the future.

Yeah, that's great. No, I think there's some opportunities with that. Yeah, but there's also, we'll get like two or three bites at the apple because we'll see whatever the trail project is come before us through the Parks and Recreation Board, KDC, and also Council. So if there's something, I mean, it's budgeted and allocated, but if we don't want to spend the money, we don't have to. That's a great question.

So this amount, this total amount, this total amount is for the whole, for that, for KDC for that year, it can, would the way it's split up can change? Mm-hmm. Okay.

Yeah, it's just kind of like on the horizon. Okay, got it.

And it can be amended just then to, at any time, so yeah.

Yeah, so if like, you know, Dr. Rank leaves idea for a zip line connecting Old Town Keller West and East ever comes to fruition, we could add an end to the 28-29 year if we want, so.

Any other questions for FY 28-29? No, good stuff. FY 2930 capital projects, trail system expansion at 650, synthetic turf replacement at 520, and then playground replacement at Keller Smithsville activity node. And as city manager Rector noted, that budget is smaller than Johnson Road Park because of the shade structure is not needed there. So that's why it's 500 instead of a little bit more. And then FY 3031, we'll do the pond dredging at Keller Town Center. That is a million-dollar capital project. We'll do the trail system expansion for $700,000 and the synthetic turf replacement at $520,000, totaling $2.2 million. Any questions on any capital projects or any slides you've seen?

No, the only one that I have is I'm still not convinced that the Johnson Road Park, it's enough money for it, but. I say that every time it comes up and hopefully I'm wrong.

Yeah, we've interviewed three different playground companies and I've heard from them. So we have a subcommittee within the Parks and Rec Board. So we are meeting this week to tally up our scores, see where we're at, see what company we're leaning towards. Then we will present that to the Parks and Rec Board and then they will present their recommendation to KDC, which will then come to City Council to review and kinda decide where we stand and if we're liking what we're seeing and if we wanna move forward with that company.

From a process perspective, is that like a July or August?

We're gonna update Park Board this July and then give them a recommendation in August, at the August Parks and Rec Board meeting.

Okay, got it. Thank you.

Of course. Anything else I can help with?

No, I think that's great. You don't need us to take any action, do you?

No, but Marsha has some FY26, 27 funding updates for you all.

All right.

I'll be very brief. So the following is the funding for the projects that Jordan just described to you all. As far as the budget proposed for 26-27, we have revenues expected of 4.9 million, expenditures of 4.8, with a remaining fund balance of 2.4 million. With regards to sales tax revenue, we are proposing $4.8 million. This year's current budget was $4.7 million. We are seeing a variance of $142,000, which is great, about a 3%. And then for year-end projection, there is a slightly above budget at $4.8 million. So below is a, or before you is a detailed description of the expenditure summary. As you can see on the right side, the operations and maintenance budget is 125,000. Under the service and other category is 147,122. This is highlighted just to show that that is the personnel that was discussed during the work session portion of the meeting today. Debt service is 2.5 million. The transfers out are 1.9, and capital outlay for the equipment that Ms. Dawson described is about 40,000, so a total of 4.8 in expenditures. Fund balance for this upcoming year is at 2.4 million. And then for the five-year forecast, numbers are good. Our major concern, which is also discussed during the work session, is when fiscal year, excuse me, fiscal year 33, 34 comes around, that fund balance is less than the 25% required. So we are definitely going to be keeping a close eye on that.

What's the jump on that year in expenditures?

So on that year, we have planned the Northeast Park as well as the pond dredging.

So to Councilman Brennan's earlier question, if we didn't have the Northeast Park in there, the plans in that red bar would go way down?

Yes, it would change it.

It's good to plan and anticipate. I just want to make sure I understood.

Any other questions?

No, thank you. Council, anything? You want to stick around a little longer? All right. I think that is our last item. It is a public hearing. It's a public hearing? Yes. Alonzo, Aaron, Brian, Marsha, Jordan, Chief Fortune, would you like to speak in this public hearing? Yes, sir. All right. Stan? All right. The mayor pro tem has made a motion. Councilman Rankleaf?

Thank you. Thank you, staff, for the presentation. And thank you, Mr. Mayor. We spend a lot of time on KDC, and we do our best to put out a vision for the community and for council to give an idea of what we're envisioning. So a lot of work's gone into all of this. With that, I move to close the public hearing on item H8. Thanks, Mayor Pro Tem.

Do you have a quick comment, Councilman Armstrong? I'll come back to it. At a future council meeting?

No. Okay. You're just closing it, right?

Yeah, we're about to be wrapped up for the evening, sir, so if you have a comment, I'd make it known.

I do. I'll be voting and recusing myself on this just because this information I didn't have prior to just now seeing it.

Good comment, and I think that's totally understandable. Thanks for letting us know. All right, so the mayor of Pro Tem made a motion to close the public hearing. Dr. Rankleaf?

I second that motion.

Well done, sir. All right, let's vote. Public hearings closed. And just a FYI for anyone still listening, we have canceled the July 21st regular city council meeting. We'll have an extended summer break for the staff. mainly because Jordan and your team did such a great job at Keller Lights, we're still exhausted. So I guess during the month of July, the rest of it will be celebrating the 250th. So thank you, Jordan and team. Thank you, Chief Fortune, Chief Skaggs, for everything you did on that once again. And with that, I'll take a motion to close. Councilman Whatley? Motion. Dr. Ankleve? Second. We're closed.

¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.