City Council - Regular Meeting

It is now 5 PM. I called this meeting to order. I need a council. I need to. Let the record show that all council members are present. Council, I need a motion to approve the agenda. I need a motion to approve the agenda. Council Member Brown. You can speak without me.

I move to approve the agenda.

Can I get a second? Council Member Kendricks. Second. uh second by council member mckinley all those in favor signify by saying yes oppose no okay raise your hand all those that are in favor raise your hand all those opposed the motion carries seven to zero It is now time for citizen comments. Citizens will have three minutes to speak with one minute time allotted for City Council to respond with a statement or explanation without engaging in dialogue. Madam City Attorney, please call the first name. Good afternoon, ma'am.

Good afternoon, everybody. Okay. I'm going to speak on Agenda DS-26060, which is related to citizen comment period during the city. Okay. I have my timer, too, so just to keep me in time. As for knowledge in the items, if the resident has three to four minutes to speak, what is a problem to allow the residents whom is a stakeholder in the city to speak? Let them vent. You take notes and follow through. After three to four minutes, the resident has to realize that he or she is done. You only got two or three minutes. You can represent the resident if you do not want to listen to what they feel or see as a concern. As a concern. I don't know who told you that your job is just to show up to the meetings and vote yes or no. And that's if you're done. And that's if you're done after that. What are you all so afraid of as far as the non-agenda comments? You have until 11 PM, my understanding, to represent us and hear us. With the same respect that we have to hear your responses to city businesses. If I don't want to stay until 11 as a resident, it's my duty. I didn't run to be a representative of the people, you did. So again, if you don't feel you have compassion for the job, then maybe you need to step down. Not all money is good money. Remember that. Now, last, I'm not here to belittle anyone, you, or to talk down to you. You will do it to yourselves by your reactions and your actions on how you vote and how you make comments to people and to other council members. We see more on live stream than we do when we're sitting out here. I know when I look at the meeting on live stream, I can see you from above. Sitting back here, I can only see the bottom. So all of you, when you're looking at your phones, when you're making comments, when you're talking to each other, when another council member is talking, we can see all that in live stream. So if other personnel aren't seeing that, they're seeing it on live stream. And that's what gets everybody why they don't want to. Because, I mean, let's grow up and be honest and do the right thing. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. City Attorney.

Michael Fornino.

Good afternoon, sir.

Additional charter proposed charter amendments. Let's be honest. I think you all say we respect the will of the people and the will of the voters. Why then is it that you prevented any charter amendment previously that would restrict yourselves? Iteration after iteration, this council as a body, and I don't want to hear, oh, well, that was the last council. You're all responsible for it. Change it, carry it forward. It's on you to where it doesn't matter what previous councils have done. or have what they felt. Everything that you voted down previously restricted the citizens. This council has restricted the police from doing no-knock warrants. But what you live in mortal dread and mortal fear of is restricting yourselves to anything that even comes close to resembling transparency, accountability, or responsibility. So when it comes to non-agenda items, it's the Bill of Rights. It's not the Bill of Wants or Suggestions. When it comes to non-agenda items, if you don't want to do that, oh, we'll just put it in the governing standards, which can change at a whim. I laugh at that. What if we did that with some of the amendments in the Constitution? That wouldn't fly. I will remind you that I'm still suing you. When it comes to... Interim city manager appointment, the first two questions out of your mouth, whomever you decide to have as a candidate. Have you ever been fired for cause from any other city or position previous to applying here? Do they understand the employer-employee relationship? Because I'm not seeing that with what we've got right now. Who manages who? Who's who's boss? There's a chain of command. A lot of you like to flaunt your military careers and experiences. Where is that? That goes back to citizen comment on non-agenda items. Leadership is communication. If you can't firmly communicate your directive, your idea, or your intent, you can't expect anybody to execute it. Whomever our current city manager's successor is, I sincerely hope that you're not going to cut him or her as much slack as you have what we have right now. Hides information from the public. Hides information from you. No matter what it is, always has somebody else to blame. Oh, he's a wonderful man. Oh, he's a wonderful city manager. From back here, from the citizen standpoint, from our front porches, from our tax bills, we're not seeing it. Rock up, be leaders, when in charge, be in charge. You wanted the jobs, as the previous speaker said. Nobody forced you into these positions. You sought them. When in charge, be in charge. Set the tone, day one, minute one. And if the successor runs off the rails even slightly, do not be afraid to be the boss and fire him or her.

Thank you, sir. City Attorney.

Agu.

Thank you, Council. Mr. Mayor. Good afternoon, ma'am. On April 1st of this year, the city of Killeen made a post saying that animal adoptions are taking place on Comer's Drive, which is the old animal shelter. There was no mention of the- Killeen Animal Center being shut down due to mold. Mid-April, City of Killeen made a post again with Killeen's shelter staff in front of the building on Rancier. Again, no mention of that building being shut down due to mold. At the end of April, a former animal control officer contacted me and informed me that the building had been shut down indefinitely due to mold. I then contacted Kevin Limetic with KDH News, and then you saw the story. And only then the public found out that that building had been shut down due to mold. Shelter staff had been placed in a very difficult position. They did not design, nor did they purchase that building, which is not designed to be used as an animal shelter. It's okay as a vet clinic. There's a big difference. At a vet clinic, you bring the animal, get seen, and then you go home in an animal shelter. Animals are housed for long periods of time. Instead of focusing on a quick fix, think about what's best for the community and focus on long term. Is it better to spend more money on a building that cannot really be designed to be a proper animal shelter because of the size of the lot and the location? It's right next to houses. The old location is a lot more suitable, it's a lot bigger, and it's not next to somebody's house. The Ranciere location doesn't just need proper drainage. It also needs proper ventilation, proper flooring, proper waterproof walls. For two years, staff had to clean these temporary dog kennels that are on wheels. They have three sides and they're pushed against the wall and they hose down urine and feces against the wall and it's spread all over the floor. You don't have to be... an expert to know that this is not sanitary. But somehow this was acceptable, a $1.7 million building. Even if you spent all that money to fix the drainage, the ventilation, flooring, and walls, you would still not be able to build proper dog kennels Where the dogs can go in and out on their own. You can build kennels, just not the ideal ones. I think an architect specializing in animal shelters should design this. And this is my two cents. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. City Attorney.

Jamie Carroll.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

Good afternoon. I'm going to also be speaking about the animal adoption facility. We spent a lot of money on this building, and while it might not have been the perfect setup, there are facilities that operate without the perfect setup globally, even in war zones, that have not destroyed their buildings with mold. We have an accountability issue on mold doesn't grow on its own. It doesn't just crop up one day and take over a building. We bought this building already. We need to take care of this building. We need to fix this building. Every day that animals pile up, in our shelter, there's a cost to all of us in this city. Euthanasia is not free. And when animals can't be turned in easily because shelters are at capacity, guess what? They end up on the streets. Often unaltered, which means in the future, we're going to have more animals and more and more and more. We don't have a really good transparent foster program. That's keeping these shelters full. And when we're at reduced capacity as it is, nothing's helping. Supposedly, we have a foster program. I've asked about it and I have received some weird dubious email that doesn't look like it's official. When I go to the website for animal control, all that, I don't see anything for a foster program. We don't have a trap, neuter, and release program. All of these help lower capacity, which lowers the bill. If we need more funding for fixing a shelter, adding a shelter, a new building, new lot, whatever it is, we still have to address the capacity issue that will help this. We're already in millions of dollars in this facility. And if we're going to spend millions more, which I agree it needs to be done because otherwise it's a tidal wave of animals. We got to have some accountability. Who is spraying water all over the place and getting a building moldy? I work for both the state of Texas and the federal government. If I destroyed a million dollar building, I would be in prison. There is no excuse under the sun for just spraying stuff everywhere. It doesn't matter. When you're working with less, you got to work with bigger thought process. You have to take care of these public facilities. And that you have to be held accountable, too. If you destroy public property, we need to know why. Why is this being done? That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. City Attorney?

Dr. Sue Neesey-Croft.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm here tonight regarding agenda items regarding the Chapter Review Committee recommendation and the ongoing efforts to restore citizen comments on non-agenda items. As you deliberate on the upcoming ballot proposals and instruct staff on updates to your governing standards, you face a critical crossroad. I strongly urge the Council to protect its own future flexibility by keeping the upcoming rules broad, constitutional, and free of micromanaged traps. Right now, the test of how these restored Commons will operate is still being shaped. My warning tonight is simply do not allow granular procedural mechanics to be permanently locked into Colleen's core governing documents. In effective governance, broad principles belong in a charter, while everyday mechanics belong in adjustable ordinances. If staff drafts amendments that inject micro-rules such as explicitly forcing all non-agenda remarks to be addressed strictly to the council as a whole, you will be setting an operational trap for yourselves. Enshrining that kind of micromanagement Enshrining that type of micromanagement into the charter is a rigid standard, creates three dangerous implications. First, it creates absolute rigidity. The city charter is incredibly difficult and expensive to change. If you lock a specific format into place now and six months later you realize it is hijacking your meeting flow or causing operational chaos, you will be powerless to fix it without launching a costly public elections. Second, it forces unnecessary friction between the council and the public. A council as a whole restriction forces the mayor to constantly act as an aggressive referee, interrupting passionate residents the moment they mention a specific district representative name. This derails the substance of public comment and turns democracy into a battle over directly addresses their specific representative about neighborhood specific issues. Therefore, as you give final direction tonight, please protect your future flexibility. Ensure that any text regarding Heading to the voters or into the governing standards protects the broad right to speak, but leaves the administrative mechanics out of the permanent text. Keep the operational mechanics in the city ordinance where you retain the power to manage, adjust, and improve them as city grows, as Killeen grows. I thank you for listening.

Thank you, ma'am. City attorney.

Leo Gukaisen.

Good afternoon, sir.

Mr. Mayor, Madam Mayor Pro Temp, City Councilman, City Attorney, City Secretary, and City Manager, Mr. Cagle. I'd like to start off with a quote here. Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. That was made by Coretta Scott King. Basically, I stand here this evening as what I would consider a minority of the 160,000 residents of Clean. That is, I do believe that people should address their grievances and disappointments and latitude and good comments about your government agency. But it hurts me to say today that basically, after the few weeks of going over these council charter review committee recommendations, I am ashamed of the council. as should other people be as well. This council voted to have the charter review committee for the purpose of reviewing certain chapters in the charter and to bring forth recommendations to the council. Each member of the council selected a citizen representative for the committee. The citizens gave up not only their personal time, but their family time to participate on this committee and to do the job that they were asked to their best of their abilities. We discussed each recommendation and came up with what we felt to be the best for the city of clean and the residents. This is the citizens charter and not the council's charter. By your actions, you have told the committee thank you, but no thank you because we know better. Of the 10 charter committee recommendations that have been addressed, you have only approved three to be forwarded to the voter for them to decide. Seven were voted not to go forward. to the residents to decide. Other two that, excuse me, other two, you look, the two of the three that you approved and the seven you voted not to let the voters decide what they would like to have, have one thing in common. The only common denominator is that the benefits you and make, I'm sorry, the only common denominator is that they benefit you and make it easier for you to retain your seat and to allow you to decide who you want to join your little club. You have done everything possible to prevent the voters to decide what they want. Their charter, remember, to look like it to ensure the powers reside and remain with the special group of the people. You have praised how well voters are. I guess that only counts toward the voters that voted you in office. But on the other hand, you are telling the voters that they don't know what is best that you do. If that is not a picture perfect example of what the word, excuse me, went down the wrong pipe. Arrogance, I don't know what is. You have said numerous occasions that the voters know best, but yet it appears that you are afraid to... Sir, your time is up.

Council? Yes. Thank you very much.

Okay, if that's not the picture, perhaps maybe the word arrogance. I do not know... You have said on numerous occasions that the voters know best, but yet it appears you are afraid to allow them to exercise their right to vote and determine what they feel is best for Killeen and their charter. Inquiry minds would like to know why, but overall, I guess we never will. And in conclusion, the ultimate measure of a person is not where he or she stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he or she stands in times of challenge and controversy. Martin Luther King. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. City Attorney.

There are no other persons who have signed up to speak.

Thank you, ma'am. With that, we'll move on to discussion items. Madam Secretary. Excuse me, unless the council would have any comments, response. Okay, we'll move on to discussion items.

Madam Secretary. DS26060, discuss charter amendments related to citizen comment period during city council meetings.

Good afternoon, Mr. Waller. Good evening, Beathard.

Turn this on. Is that on? Okay. Meeting Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members. So I've got the last item, the last recommendation that came from the Charter Review Committee. This is gonna be the citizen comment period on non-agenda items. For background, the governing standards and expectations serve as a single source reference for the City Council's rules, protocols, procedures, and policies. As you've all heard, this is what we've been discussing a lot to adopt the new governing standards. These were first adopted by City Council in 2018. They're regularly reviewed, amended, and readopted around the June and July of every year. The Texas Open Meetings Act requires that a governmental body allow members of the public to address the body regarding an item on the agenda during the body's consideration of the item. The governing standards and expectations for the city of Killeen had expanded that right to allow citizens to speak on non-agenda items. That section granting that ability to speak on non-agenda items was removed from the governing standards in January of 2024. In reviewing other cities regarding this proposed recommendation, including this in the city's charter, I did look to 22 other cities that are in comparable population size. It's 100,000 to 300,000 people. None were found to have a provision requiring a citizen comment period, a non-agenda item within their charter. I'm not saying that they don't allow it. It's just none of these other cities have a provision like this within their charter. A vast majority, if not all of these cities, did have a revision that states that something to the effect of the city council shall determine its own rules and order of business. This is pretty much verbatim was what comes out of our city of Colleen's charter as well. The charter review committee recommended that the charter should adopt procedures to allow citizens the opportunity to speak on city-related non-agenda items at all regular city council meetings. The all comments should be addressed to the council as a whole and not be directed at an individual council member. Based on that recommendation, amendments would need to be made to section 36 of the charter. I've got a potential, oops. So these are the proposed amendments that were presented to the Charter Review Committee. Essentially what we're doing is just adding a sentence to the end of Section 36. It states to the effect that during every city council meeting, there shall be an opportunity for citizens to speak on non-gen items during the meeting. Now, I will say that this is not... what this would do is just allow, and it's already being discussed with the governing standards about adding this, effectively what this would do is just prohibit the council from ever removing that section from the governing standards. Based on that, staff is requesting direction as to whether the city council accepts, modifies and accepts or rejects the Charter Review Committee's recommendation regarding citizen comments during city council meetings. It's happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Miss Wallander. Um, Council discussion. Council member Brown.

Okay, we got it. Thank you. So I just have a question for you before I make a motion, Mr. Wallander. Yes. When it states that individual making comments should address the council as a whole and shall refrain from personally addressing any individual members. That just means the comments are made toward everybody, but it doesn't prevent an individual name from being mentioned, correct?

Correct. So the intent of that was what the Charter Review Committee discussed when they were proposing that section, is that the comment period shouldn't be a venue for any attack on any one council member, that it should be used to address city-related business as a whole to the entire council. But no, it would not prohibit that, no.

I would not prohibit it. So with that in mind and knowing that it wouldn't actually prohibit anything, then I would make a motion of direction to accept this recommendation.

It's a motion by Council Member Brown to accept the recommendations. Is there a second, Council Member Bass? Is there a second? Is there a second? There is no second. The motion fails. Okay, council. What is the desire of the council? Council member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Waller, so looking at the first sentence, the above notwithstanding during a regular council meeting, it doesn't say workshop. So it's only in work. Is it written that any meeting of the council or only regular council?

No. So the intent was it to apply to regular meetings on the work session. It would still apply to work sessions of the regular meeting, which is the – the meeting prior to the regular meeting when we're going over the topics. So that would apply to the regular bi-monthly regular meeting. It would not apply to special meetings. The intent was because special meetings are called to address a certain issue, that all the remarks should remain germane to that specific issue.

Like today, we're in a special meeting. Correct. It wouldn't apply. Correct. But it would apply for work sessions, even though, I mean, I'm not trying to play with semantics here, but it does say during a regular council meeting, which we only have regular council meetings twice a month, right?

Right. And so I would say this would expand to work sessions, say if it was were to split the meeting up regular meetings up into a work session and do a regular session. then yes, it would. If we were to split them up and have them on separate days and we would have citizen comments on both, then yes, it would apply to those work sessions.

So if we have a work session and a regular council meeting on the same day, then it applies to both of those meetings then?

Like our current format? Yes. Yes, then it would just be the one citizen comment period at the end. That was pretty much what was proposed with the governing standards. That is what's up before this council meeting.

I guess I'm not trying to split hairs here, but it does say regular council meeting. Yes. It doesn't say workshops. Is a workshop a regular council meeting?

Work sessions, I mean, we have work sessions at the beginning. I think the notion of the workshop as its own separate meeting might be kind of a misnomer. We have a work session at the beginning of a regular council meeting, and that session is part of the meeting. Now, we used to, the previous format where we had the workshop was its own meeting the week prior to the regular meeting. In that instance, I would say because the workshop is discussing the topics of the regular council meeting, So would that apply?

Would this apply to the workshop? Go ahead.

has written, and it is saying regular council meetings, and I think Mr. Wallander is saying our work session right now is part of our regular meeting. But what if it's separate? Sorry?

What if it's separate?

But if it's separate, if you had a separate, and our governing standards do have an option to have just a separate workshop meeting, and that wouldn't be a regular meeting, then I do not believe that this would apply.

Okay. That was a clarification. Thank you.

Council Member Bass.

Since Council Member Brown's motion failed, this charter proposal fails, correct?

No, I'm still looking for the direction of council, whether or not they want to outright reject it or want to make any sort of modifications to it or something. I'm still looking for some sort of direction as opposed to what to do with this recommendation. Okay.

Thank you. I am in favor of citizen comments on non-agenda items. I believe the proper place for that is the governing standards. Therefore, I make a motion to reject the proposed charter amendment on citizen comments on non-agenda items. Thank you, Mayor.

A motion has been made by Council Member Bass to reject. Is there a second? Council Member Kendricks.

I second the motion.

Second by Council Member Kendricks. Any discussion? Council Member Brown?

While we have tentatively agreed to put it into our governing standards, the whole reason that the Charter Review Committee recommended this move forward to Council for consideration on the ballot is because, as the presentation showed, that right was given to the citizens at one point and then taken away in January, six months in between when we normally would review the Charter. It wasn't even done, or I'm sorry, the governing standards. So it wasn't even done at a time when we would normally be reviewing these. to add or take away from the way the meeting progresses. For that reason, I think it needs to be in there because while we have a council right now who in the majority supports those non-agenda comments, that's not going to be the case forever. The prior council certainly didn't feel that way. And again, this is something that the people should have a say on, that should be put out to the citizens and allow them to vote. This isn't saying that we are definitely doing it. go out and tell the voters that you don't like this proposal and you think they should vote no if that's your stance on it, and give them the reasons why you believe they should vote no on it, but at least give them the opportunity to have a say what happens in their charter. Thank you.

Councilman Mineshki.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council. I agree with Mr. Bass' motion because We're here because the residents that attend the meeting wanted to speak on non-agenda items. And the motion was to move it, not in our charter, which I consider to be sacred, to move it into our governing standards and expectation from where it should be. A prime example. Once you put something in the charter, you have to wait until it come around to vote on it again. And we all witnessed that our city manager was attacked for no apparent reason other than that. When you put it in the charter and this non agenda items, Each and individuals, whether it be staff, whether it be council, whether it be a resident, because it is a non-agenda item, the mayor would not even have a say to try to tell them to stop because we, the council, would have put it in the charter, which the charter will override the mayor because it's the people charter. The best place for this to give them what they want to talk on non-agenda. I'm saying that's going to stop them from attacking people because this has been playing out like this since 2017. But a council had the strength to say no more attacks. This is a place of business and we should conduct city business. And if you have personal problems with an individual, you take it outside of the chamber. We have become a laughing stock. Because some of the things that are being discussed and talked about is irrelevant to what's on the agenda. I don't agree with it even being in the governor's standards expectations. However, I would accept that instead of putting it in charter and saying to a person that come to that podium, you have the right to say whatever you want to say. Rub it and embarrass a person, hurt a person on the council that may have another job, or it's just not true. It does not belong in the charter. Protect the council that's coming and protect the people that have the right to come here and hear the business of the city without a sideshow. Thank you.

Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think there's a lot of discussion. At the end of the day, people are going to say what they want to say. And if it's a lot, as long as it's city business, I have no problem with people expressing themselves. I'm just more of the details because I'm still trying to split hairs between a regular council meeting and a work session and workshop because at the end of the day, we still have to do city business and And for planning purposes, if it was done during a certain time where there was a set regular council meeting, and that's fine, then we can adjust the agenda. That's kind of where I'm at. I don't know if for modification purposes, I think one of the options was modification. At the end of the day, whether it's in the governing standards or whether it's in the charter, it doesn't matter to me. Charter is fine. Mine is more of a logistical thing because sometimes we have experienced heavy agendas and we can and if we know that we're going to have citizen comments on like say a budget for example because everybody wants to speak on the budget there can be a lot of presentations and we can adjust accordingly um and so that's that's my ask to the council if there's any consideration on modification on when it actually happens whether it's a regular council meeting or a work session but as i'm reading it now it is any time that we meet whether it is a work session or work session or a regular council meeting based on what explanation I have. So that's my comment.

Mayor, Tim Gonzalez.

Thank you. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mayor. I do. Thank you for bringing that up, Councilmember Kimball. Regarding the process, I think also I have a question regarding that. Due to our length of the meetings at times. So my question to the council, I understand we're talking about adding the non-agenda items. I think it is important that the citizens have that opportunity. But I'd like to know if I could ask the council's feedback on that process and what that looks like to be able to afford the citizens. specific time to be able to speak on that. I've also got a constituent, Mr. Eggert, who's asked me to read this on the record for him as well. And so he would like to respectfully recommend a permanent rule with change concerning the non-agenda items that we're considering an ongoing governance standard revisions. He said our citizens' voices need to be heard on a consistent basis. And he is also requesting that we, as elected officials, support citizen comments. Where they go, that's not the issue, but he is looking for a stabilized option for citizens to participate where they have a consistent meeting opportunity. Council review committee recommendations he is in favor of, but also request a standing meeting where their positions and considerations can be heard. All too often we keep hearing the negative side of the citizens' comments, but there are also people that are providing positive information and feedback to our city, and they too are looking for space to be able to do that. So my question to the council would be, Is there a better place to put this? Because if we do it at the end of our meeting, as we talked about before, you're talking about the last 30 minutes. We don't know how long those meetings are going to go. That limits it to maybe 6 to 12 people, maybe, versus all of our citizens having a designated time to be able to speak and address their concerns, challenges, or provide us insight. That's all I have. Thank you.

Council Member Kendricks.

As I want to speak on this, I'm really torn between this. I do think it's some things we can do in reference to the citizen comments. But there's also, it comes with a sort of a price. And what I mean by a price, we could get the same individuals that come up and comments that are not even about the non-agenda item. They make it personal and a lot of those things. And those are the things that I wish as a whole we could fix, but I can't fix each individual's heart. I cannot do that. I truly wish we could fix it to where we can truly talk about anything, where it doesn't become insults and things of that nature. But I do believe if the body was to agree to put this at the end of the meeting, I think it may become even more hostile. because then people are waiting, and they're waiting a long time, depending on how the meeting goes, and I think it creates more hostility than serving the purpose that it's supposed to serve. I think there's a way where we can figure this out, and it's twirling in my head right now, and I really think I have a solution, Not if everybody will agree with the solution, but I think it's a pretty good solution. That's all I have.

Council Member Bass.

Please correct me if I mistake this. When I made the motion to put citizen comments on non-agenda items in the governing standards, I think it was a motion of direction, my idea was that the citizen comments on non-agenda items would be in the regular citizen comment section at the beginning of the regular meeting. So a person who wanted to comment would make a choice. Are they going to comment on agenda items or are they going to comment on a non-agenda item or a combination because right now people can comment on more than one agenda item. They just have to fit all that into three minutes. That was my idea. But correct me if I'm wrong, Council Member Brown proposed that it should be two separate comment periods so that a citizen could comment on agenda items at the beginning of the regular council meeting. And then that same citizen, if they chose, could comment on non-agenda items at the end of the council meeting. And I believe that's what we are going to see on the red line presentation. Am I correct?

Yes, that's the discussion we'll have next week in the discussion on governing standards. Just to be clear, this language that we're looking at adding potentially to a charter election and adding to the charter doesn't talk about where this would be on the agenda. That could be done in the governing standards, but this charter amendment would codify in the charter that there's a right for the citizens to speak on non-agenda items.

And my motion is to reject that.

That's what I have.

Thank you.

Council Member Nashking.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I was just going to clarify what Attorney Clements was saying that we was discussing that this would not go in the charter and that his motion was for it to go in the governor's standards and governance standards and expectations. which is not taken away from the residents of being afforded the opportunity to discuss whatever they want to discuss. And she clarified that this is not where we're going to work out the details on where it would go. we will have to wait until the governing standards and expectations come back to move forward with that because the first motion, the original motion was already rejected and the second motion is something totally different. He's rejecting it but he also is saying I do agree that they should be afforded the opportunity to put it on the agenda to discuss whatever they want to discuss. It's just a matter of trying to figure out if it's going to be combined together with the citizen comments or if it's going to be separate. But right now, the motion is to reject it from being in the charter and to vote to put it in the governing standards and expectation. That is correct. That is the motion right now on the floor, Mr. Mayor.

You're right. Council Member Kendricks. and call for the vote. So, the attorneys, could you repeat the motion, please?

The motion on the floor is to reject this charter amendment, and then we have a call for the vote, and if there's a second, there'll need to be a vote on that.

It was second by Councilmember Naskin to call for the vote. All in favor? You can signify by saying yes on your devices. All opposed, no. Okay, the motion passed six to one. Council Member Kimball opposed.

Okay.

So now it's proper to go back to we need a vote on the actual motion to reject this proposal.

Could you repeat that proposal?

The motion is to reject the recommendation with regard to this amendment.

All in favor signify yes. All opposed, no. Pass. Pass.

Clarity. The first motion did not pass, correct?

Correct.

And then Mr. Bass made the second motion, a brand new motion. But maybe I'm mistaken. I didn't hear an amendment to his motion. Was it an amendment? I didn't hear an amendment to his motion.

There is no amendment. There's a motion on the floor now to reject the proposal. To reject this addition to the charter, to reject the idea that this citizen comment period will be on the charter election.

Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that clarification.

All in favor signify yes. All opposed, no. The motion passed six, five to two. With Council Member Brown opposing and Council Member Kimball opposing.

All right.

Okay, we can continue, Madam Secretary.

DS26-061, discuss additional proposed charter amendments.

So like I said, that was the last item that we had from all the charter review committee and their recommendations. So we're going to bring this item for this council in case there are any other proposed amendments to the city charter before we start working on ballot language and finalizing these red line edits. So at this point, just looking for any sort of motions of direction as to additional amendments.

Council Member Brown.

There was an amendment that had been tossed around by the committee that they didn't have a chance to fully discuss because it came up on the final night of their meeting when everything was just being wrapped up and finalized to come back to the council. And that was to add a requirement or a stipulation that a staff member who is in an executive or management position, if they retire or they resign, they would be ineligible to hold that seat either on a permanent or temporary basis for a minimum of three years. And so I think that's something that we should consider going forward.

Council Member Nashke.

One of the things that we had spoke about, Mr. Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem had stated this, but we never really worked our way through it, is the wording for why a person should or should not be recalled. And I think she was talking about a crime or things of that nature. We have the recall process, but what reasons, just not any reasons, but to consider why putting in, they should be called on the grounds of this, this, or that. And just instead of leaving it so broad, let's just say you have to really do something. And I really was researching this other cities and how they have it written. And even with Harker Heights, it's specific reasons a person has to be recalled. Why is that so important? Anybody can do a recall right now. It just takes away the time and the effort, not only from staff, it also takes away the time from moving forward because you're always going to hear recall, recall, recall. But I still think they should have the right if they want to recall somebody, but there has to be a reason for that recall. Just not because I want to do it, just because they did something like, for instance, stole money. For instance, did a DWI that brought embarrassment upon the council or just something that's serious. That is why I think a person should be recalled. Not because I don't like them or they didn't return an email or just stuff of that nature. That's all I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor.

I think Mr. Wallinger wanted to respond to you.

I was just going to say we did, this council did accept a recommendation to go to the... What was that? It was for malfeasance, incompetence, or... We voted on that? Yes.

Okay, I was not at that meeting there. Yeah, there was... So that is moving forward. So we established verbiage. Thank you. I'm sorry, what?

We did establish reasons. Correct, yes. There are specific grounds that must be alleged in a recall petition. And I kind of wanted to... Do you remember this one? I WANTED TO POINT OUT, I'M LOOKING FOR ACTUAL MOTIONS OF DIRECTION TONIGHT, SECOND, AND APPROVAL BY THIS COUNCIL MOVING FORWARD. BASICALLY, BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING ON A VERY SHORT TIMELINE, I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF MEETINGS LEFT BEFORE WE MEET THE DEADLINE TO GET THIS ON IT, SO IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL IDEAS, I WOULD LIKE THAT ACTUAL DIRECTION. SO I DON'T KNOW, I KNOW COUNCILMAN BROWN HAD BROUGHT ONE UP, IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE FLUSHED OUT MORE, OR IF THERE'S GOING TO BE APPROVAL ON THAT BY COUNCIL. I just wanted to point that out that I wasn't planning on coming back with these items. It was just planning on being tonight would be the final night. Tonight would be the final night? Correct. Correct. The base on my schedule right now, the pro schedules, I come back next in two weeks with the proposed ballot language and then come back the following week with the ordinance calling the election. That would be the August 4th meetings. That would be the last regular meeting before the deadline to call the election. So if I can get any sort of motions tonight as far as additional amendments, I can make those make those amendments come back to you in two weeks with those for your for your approval. And then also have that proposed ballot language ready at the same time.

Understood. So you're looking for motions of any any. Yes, sir. Additional. Yes. Council Member Kendricks.

With that being said, I would like to make a motion with the recall provisions to require that only a registered voter who resides in that district represented by the district council member may initiate a recall petition against the district council member. Furthermore, only signatures of the registered voters within that same district shall be counted toward the required number of signatures for the recall petition. I believe the second part is already in there. I'm more concerned about recalls with someone being out of that district. I don't think that is proper, and I think it should be someone that lives in that district in order to make that recall.

Okay, there was a motion by Council Member Kendricks. Is there a second on that?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to second that motion or direction, and I agree. Discussion is open. Thank you, sir. If you live in that area, you should be. Like when I was District 2 rep, then I represent District 2. So the people that want to recall me should be from that district. Because that means it goes back to what I stated earlier. Anybody from Killeen that do not live in that district and does not know how hard the person, the district rep, has worked to represent that district. And I can use one person, Mr. Mayor, that I know for sure that in the past... No, I won't. But for you, for instance, Mr. Mayor, you was District 2 rep, and I know how hard you worked and moved forward with that. Now we have another District 2 rep just works as hard as you did. And I think that person deserves to have the people in that district, if he or she wants to recall them, instead of anyone in the city deciding one day, I don't like Councilwoman Nash King, and I want to recall her, but I'm in District 2. Thank you.

Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wald, I don't know if you have it in front of you. I know we've made an adjustment. Do you have that language of what's going to go in the ballot when it comes to recall and the voting strength of the recall? What does it currently say or what's going to be moved forward? For the grounds? Yes. Well, no, no, for the signatures and the qualifiers. I do not have that in front of me now. The motion that Councilman Kendrick made, so I'm assuming that currently is not in there, that the registered voter has to be from the district.

Correct. It's like he was saying, part of it is in there, so it does require a voter to be a part of that district. But in order to file an affidavit to initiate the recall, it could be any citizen. You can file it for any council member.

I'm just going to run through a few scenarios since we don't have, I don't have, I didn't come prepared to talk about that. So, so if I, under the current rules, any part for district, any member from the city of Colleen who voted can initiate the. It doesn't have to come from that district. That's correct. So and if I'm correct, Sir, you're saying that for someone to initiate it, it should have to that person should come from that district. And what about the people who signed a petition? Do they have to come from that district also?

Yes, sir. That's already in it.

OK, that person. OK, so it's just the initiation of the recall. OK. All right. Thanks for that clarification.

Council Member Brown.

I personally don't think it matters who initiates it. All of the signatures still have to come from within the district in question, or conversely, it's going to be an at-large or the mayor, which are citywide anyway. So half of the council is citywide. Now we're going to try to add another requirement on the staff for something they have to do in order to process this. Because that means staff would then have to go back and verify where in the city a voter is registered before they know if they can even accept a petition from them to be able to give them the forms to go out and do the work. It doesn't matter who starts it. It's already in the charter that says no matter if you're doing a district then everybody who signs it in order for that signature to count has to live in that district. I think we're adding extra verbiage on a ballot that we don't need to if we put this in there. It wasn't asked for by the citizens, and it really, at the end of the day, doesn't change anything. It doesn't change a single thing. I know. I will name myself as a name. I put a recall petition in on District 4, even though I live in District 2. Every single person whose signature got counted lived in District 4. On the other hand, we've had people who live in a district... that have started among those district council people or on a citywide seat that have failed. And I have been one of those people who have done that also. I've helped people who live in a district who have started it in a district that haven't been successful. So it doesn't really matter who starts it. It's about the people from that district or from the city and whether or not they agree that the person who is in question should remain on the council or not. Y'all can have all the responses that you want to, but I think that we're overly restricting the citizens. You're worried about micromanaging, then stop micromanaging the citizens.

Council Member Kendricks.

It does matter, and Mayor, point of order. Every time we get to talking, the same crew back there, point of order. I mean, I want to speak without interruptions because I didn't interrupt any of them while they spoke.

Point of order taken. Please control your volume. No clapping.

I, as I was saying, it does matter who initiates it. And we just heard that Can initiate it because I wanted to and it didn't matter To me it does matter because if you don't live in that district You could also go out and get signatures and we've already seen how this plays out You play on somebody's human emotions and when you play on emotions and talking about bunny trail, how long it took to get it fixed, then it does matter, because you played on people's emotions, and that is the reason why the petition probably was signed, because I heard word of all of this, so we need to, don't play the word games. Don't play the word games, and I'm not playing any word games, and it does matter. And once again, common denominator in everything that I say. So it matters. The citizens in that district, they elected. No one outside of that district should be the one in charge to say they don't get to, they get to recall them. If it's somebody inside of that district, that's cool. But when it's outside of the district, you're basically diluting the vote. And as citizens, The person was trying to say the voters should count. You're dang right they should count because they're in that district. And I just feel that's a discredit and a disservice to those voters that's in that district. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. See?

On the board. Okay, there's no more discussion. Attorney, would you repeat that motion, please?

I'm not sure I got the whole thing. So the motion, sorry.

All right. You want me to say it again? Okay. My motion was... with the recall provisions to require that only a registered voter who resides within the district represented by a district council member may initiate a recall petition against that district council member. Furthermore, only signatures of registered voters residing within that same district shall be counted toward the required number of signatures for the recall petition. And I also stated that second part I believe was already So mainly the part that I'm concerned about is the petitioner being from that district.

And I would restate as well, I believe that the second part is already in the charter. It's just the first part because the charter currently says that any elector of the city, Colleen, can make and file with an affidavit to start a recall petition. And so I do understand that motion. We've got that.

Okay, all in favor signify by saying yes. All opposed, no. The motion passed six to one with Council Member Brown opposing. Okay, Madam Secretary, I'm sorry, is that?

If there are any other items.

I'm sorry. Is there any other? Council Member Brown?

So in order to further discussion on it, I hope at least get some discussion out of it. I'll state my request in the form of a motion. So I would make a motion of direction to add to the list of proposed amendments. that any staff member in an executive or city management position who resigns or retires would be ineligible to hold that position for three years, whether on a permanent or a temporary basis.

Is there a second? There is no second. The motion fails. Any other counsel?

Thank you, sir. Thank you. So I'll be coming back with the proposed red lines, the edits, and the ballot language hearing. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

Madam Secretary. DS-26059, discuss animal adoption facility.

Mrs. Wilson.

Good evening, counsel. Good evening. About a month ago, you all requested that staff bring back this item to discuss a little bit more. As you all know, our animal adoption facility on Rancier is currently closed. We did discover some mold a couple months ago, and so we have relocated all services from that facility to our facility on Commerce. So I'll tell you a little bit more about how we got here. So in FY23 in our capital improvement plan, $1.84 million was allocated through a mid-year budget amendment to replace the stray building which was formerly known as our quarantine building, at Clean Animal Services on Commerce Drive. That facility houses 36 kennels and a small storage space. As staff was looking into constructing a new stray facility at that time, the staff was contacted by the owner of East Lake Veterinary Clinic to see if the city would be interested in purchasing that building. in addition to the improved kennels and enhanced amenities at that building the facility offered a surgery suite allowing us to hire a veterinarian on staff to conduct in-house sterilizations minor surgeries and provide certain vaccines including rabies so this slide is actually one that was shown when this item was initially brought to the council back in may of 23 to show comparisons of what we were looking at at the time which was either rebuilding the quarantine and isolation building at 2,400 square feet or purchasing the East Lake Vet Clinic at 6,000 square feet. You'll see there was a cost difference of $1.8 million for the clinic and about $1.84 million for the new quarantine and isolation building. There is a note in there that that was the current cost. It did not account for any increased construction costs that would have been anticipated. or any inflation during the design, engineering and everything that would have been required to get that building up and running. The yearly budget for both facilities was included, as was the space. Completion date was also a factor that was taken into consideration as the clinic would be available and move-in ready as soon as it was approved and the property was closed on. The other one was going to take some time to build. So on May 23rd of 2023, the council unanimously approved the purchase of the East Lake Veterinary Clinic and staff began the process to purchase that building. After all state requirements were fulfilled to purchase the property, the city took possession July 21st of 2023. $1.77 million was the final purchase price. An additional $5,400 was spent for various retrofit expenses. This included some additional kennel installation, capping of supply lines and outlets behind some of those kennels, and installing additional moisture resistant wall panels, etc. 16 built-in kennels were already available in the facility that included drainage when we purchased it. But to meet our needs for space, staff purchased the additional kennels for about $33,000 through a Petco grant that we are grateful to receive. We held a ribbon cutting May 2nd of 2024 and were able to hire a part-time in-house veterinarian. Just to note, so I'm Fully disclosing anything that's been done on that building. The roof was replaced in 2025 through a hail damage claim along with numerous other city properties. And I just wanted to show you a couple pictures. So this is the stray building that we're talking about rebuilding at the time. It's an open air facility. Like I said, mostly just kennel space. And here's what the facility looks like from the inside with a friend in there. And then here's the location. You'll see it's right on Rancier across from Long Branch Park. Oops. You'll see the outside of the facility once we were able to redo our branding. The picture on the right shows what the facility looked like when we purchased it on the inside. These are some of the built-in kennels that have the drainage included in the back and some of the veterinary suite. And just some additional pictures. You can tell there's a lot of surgery supplies and other things in there that have been of huge value to us. And this is outside of the facility. So you can see there's some outdoor dog runs that are available. There's some turf that's installed. So we're getting a lot more than what we would have if we just would have rebuilt the existing outdoor stray facility. All right. So this East Lake Veterinary Clinic that currently houses our Clean Adoption Center, that facility is sectioned off by multiple rooms, several of which contain the additional kennels that were purchased and installed. Staff completes extensive cleaning on a daily basis to meet the state requirements. And there are limited drains available throughout the facility that aren't built into those specific kennels. So water and cleaning agent are typically squeegeed from the various rooms housing the temporary kennels to the main built-in drains. So that's what we believe caused some of the water damage is that extensive cleaning. So a CIP request for $1.67 million was submitted in February of 26 this year to correct the drainage issue observed and also open up the space so that we could add additional kennels to accommodate for future growth. We figure as long as we're doing it, we need to do it right. So in late of February 2026, staff noticed what they thought could be mold. So animal services worked with the building services team to schedule an air quality test to ensure staff and animals were to remain safe in the building and create a plan to correct the issue. That air quality test was completed on February 24th. And although those levels came back well within a safe range, we made the decision to make additional efforts to rehome the animals on site. and begin transitioning staff to animal services facility on commerce. Part of the reason that we did this is we wanted to make sure we didn't make the issue worse. And in order to do that, we needed to stop cleaning, which means we could no longer house animals there. So signage was posted at the facility on March 24th and a public message went out April 1st on the animal services and city's Facebook page directing guests to the commerce location for all adoptions and other animal services matters. Engineering, building services, animal services, city manager's office and development services met to discuss next steps to escalate the remodel and work through solutions so that operations could be maintained. So there was no space available at the Commerce location for veterinary services. We wanted to make sure that we were able to continue the veterinary services that we've offered, not only with our in-house veterinarian, but we're about to be in a partnership with Fort Hood to support volunteer veterinarians from the base to give them additional training, and then we would also benefit from those surgeries. So staff procured a portable building to be housed at Back Commerce property solely to conduct the in-house veterinary procedures. The rental cost for this portable is about $1,800 a month. A mold test was officially completed on May 27th, and it did confirm the presence of mold. So remediation was completed earlier this month at a cost of about $44,000. So staff is currently engaging an architect to assess the building and provide options for ways to resolve the drainage issues and potentially offer some additional kennel space while we're looking at this. And once options are received and reviewed, a decision can be made so that exact costs and a timeline for completion can be determined. One of the other things I wanted to share, because we've gotten a little bit of feedback about it, if I can move forward. is what would have been the value of just building new at the time or remodeling at the time rather than proceeding with the purchase of this clinic. So I pulled several different animal shelter facilities in Texas through counties, through cities that kind of started around the time that we did to talk about what their anticipated costs were, how long it took them to open. Some of them still aren't open. and then about what it costs them and what our costs are. between the 1.77 million for the 6,000 square foot building, $5,400 in modifications, 45,000 in remediation, plus the 1.67 million that we're anticipating that remodel to be, which would include construction engineering and design, we're still looking at about 3.45 million, which based on the square footage, we feel like we're in a pretty good spot even still. So with that, happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

Council member best So the mistake that was made in this building Was that Animals were housed in rooms that were not designed to have animals in those rooms and the staff was cleaning those rooms as if they were designed for animals to reside in those rooms. Am I correct?

Yes, sir. And there were some modifications that were made, just minor modifications, not drainage, not anything substantial. But the FRP board, it's a fiberglass reinforced plastic, I believe is what it stands for, to make sure that we were offering some additional water protection that was installed there. Clearly, it wasn't enough.

So there were kennels in the building that if we had just kept the animals in those kennels, there probably wouldn't have been a problem. Is that correct? I believe so, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much.

Council Member Brown.

At what point did the city realize that the drainage was insufficient?

I mean, we thought we were making it work for the time being. We're squeegeeing that water to make sure that we could push it to the drainage areas. So at the time, we thought, okay, we found a solution. We've been able to house additional pets. We thought we were in good shape. And then at that point, clearly when we saw the mold, we're doing something wrong. So we had to stop.

So let me go back and phrase it this way. At what point did the city bring in and start coming up with a workaround for the drainage?

What do you mean to work around?

Well, so to be able to do the cleaning with the drainage that was existing, the staff essentially had to come up with a way to work around the existing drainage that was there in order to utilize the extra space for kennels. So when did that extra space start being used?

We added the additional kennels when we purchased the facility. We had a space need to make sure that we're meeting the needs of the number of animals that we serve. So we added the additional kennels before we even opened. But, I mean, squeegeeing, cleaning agent, and water, that's not something that's irregular in our operations. I bet we do that at the stray facility now. It's just a different type of building.

Right, because the stray facility was designed for that. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then in the pictures, I see there are exercise dog runs like we have over at the stray facility, but I did not see where they can go in and out at will to get air. Are they able to go in and out at will?

No, the staff has to bring them out.

And is staff there seven days a week?

Staff comes in to clean seven days a week. Are they there full time, 100% of the hours? Absolutely not. But no, somebody is there to come in and take care of the animals every day.

So seven days a week they get outside. They get to go out and walk and move. Yeah, Amanda, do you want to come in and talk about those procedures a little bit more?

I'll bring up our animal services director, Amanda Moore, to talk a little bit about that as well.

Thank you. Good evening. So, yes, staff is on duty seven days a week for ten hours a day, seven days a week. Yes.

Okay. And so every day the dogs are taken out and they're walked and they're exercised or allowed to run in the dog runs? Correct. Okay.

When the building was in use, of course.

Correct. Oh, yeah. How many animals did we actually house there? I know you said there were some temporary kennels added. Did we fill all of those 30 and 30?

No. There were a total of 26 dog kennels at that facility.

And how many cat kennels?

I know that's the one I didn't look at. I want to say we had 12 cat kennels. However, the exam rooms that you saw photoed in here could also be used as kitten housing areas or free range rooms for cats that weren't fond of other cats.

Okay. So I'm going to be honest. My concern is taking another nearly $2 million to do renovations on the building. When, if we go back to the initial presentation, and I know costs have gone up since then, I don't see where it would cost us still another $575 per square foot to build new, which is what the plan was. Then we can customize it. We can make it fit the needs of the city. know that all the proper materials, all the proper drainage is there. Because my biggest concern is, and we've seen this recently with other projects, as soon as you start tearing things up to do renovations, all of a sudden we come across issues we didn't know existed. So I'm assuming nobody has pulled up the floor at the animal adoption center in the past.

That is the intent of bringing in the architect to make sure that we're doing a thorough assessment before we continue to spend any additional money on this. But then we still have to pay for an architect. Yes, ma'am.

And if we pay for an architect and we find that it's not as feasible or as positive as we had hoped, then we have wasted the money on the architect to do that. And the architect isn't going to be able to go underneath the concrete slab to see what issues may or may not be under there. So what I'm saying is let's sell the building. It's already been remediated, so presumably that building should be somewhere close to $2 million in value now. If we paid 1.877, we did some minor modifications, and we've already remediated the problem, which would take up probably half the cost of building the new building if we can get even close to that new cost per square footage like Copperas Cove had or like Bedford had. So if we could do no square footage, or not Bedford, sorry, we'll go with Copper's Cove. Even the $500 per square foot, I think we're better off just building new instead of continuing to try to work with this.

Council Member.

I want to just keep in mind the dates that they started those projects because that's when those estimates would have come in. They would have had contracts at that point, too. Their costs are going to go up a little bit during that, but we're going to be starting – I mean, I think the most recent one is Frisco, so we're starting at that cost. Now, granted, that's a 19,000 square foot facility, but I think when you're looking at the square footage, we're looking at a lot higher. And it depends what we're getting for that. Are we getting a surgery suite? Are we getting additional dog runs? Are we just getting a stray building? It just kind of depends what you're wanting to get. Staff's request is that we do our due diligence just to make sure that we know what our options are and what the costs are involved. So that way we know what we're getting for that cost.

Okay. Council Member Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. So I recall the conversation going on. the beginning with the previous council was a lot of weight of should we do a new build versus an existing option and so there was questions about a feasibility study in general right the facility condition assessment inspections to make sure that this property was suitable for because that was a question in the beginning about whether this building was suitable for what it was about to become Was an architect used in the beginning? Did we do a feasibility, actually do a feasibility study to know that there were certain things that we were going to need over time, like the drainage and things like that? Was that lined out in the beginning? Did we already know that?

No, ma'am.

So we did not know that. Okay. And so the delays in the repairs, there was a question that was asked by one of our constituents about the understanding then that we know that this building was not retrofitted, it was not inspected for the feasibility of the usage. The damages that were done to the property, When did we realize that we were doing damage or was it just once the mold was notified identified?

Yes, it was and because Excuse me because we didn't do a mold test upon initially purchasing this facility, which isn't typically something that we do Nor is a feasibility study We don't know if the mold was there when we purchased it. I would assume that based on the level of cleaning that we're doing, it's very reasonable to assume that, yes, that damage was done per the cleaning. But, I mean, that's something we had to do in order to maintain the facility and maintain our state requirements.

So my question is that what did we do then to remedy that once we realized that the excessive cleaning or we were causing potential damage by what we were doing to the building? What did we do as a result of that?

At that point, that's when we moved out of the facility. Because we had already installed before we actually moved into the facility initially and before we did our opening, we had the waterproof or moisture-resistant surfacing on the walls to help protect some of that. But we didn't fix any drainage or anything like that. Okay.

So because Council, you know, we do have several projects, you know, that we have going on. A large part of our responsibility is oversight and also to ensure that we are dealing well with our taxpayer dollars. So as we have to rely on you, the project managers, the architects, design folks, studies that have to be done to say whether these buildings are retrofitted appropriately. We're not going to know that. We have to rely on the experts to tell us these things and sometimes to also present information. factual challenges that might be there that we might not be aware of or questions that we might not know to ask. We need to make sure that we're being presented with that information. So with that, I mean, I just, I guess I have a concern about any additional funding being approved at this time unless we have some serious positions in place for council oversight on those dollars regarding maintenance, deferred maintenance and estimation of cost. But I'll hold there. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Council Member Nashke.

Thank you. Mrs. Wilson, so from what I'm hearing from council members and you, and even the young lady that came up here and spoke, her and Ms. Anka spoke about the animal shelter. It's more cost effective for the city to continue to work out of the building we're in now.

By the building, do you mean our location on Ranciere or on Commerce?

Ranciere. In that building, compared to if the architect go in and come up with a design on how we can fix it, and I'm assuming this is so it won't happen again in the future, right? Why did y'all make that decision just compared to, and I understand cost-effective, but if the architect is coming in and he's going to find a better way to utilize that building, and I'm thinking to myself, I would have purchased that building because of what it has inside of it, and I would work around fixing all, well, this is a major problem. But it's fixable, but it would be more cost-effective to just fix what we have if we're going to have oversight and be responsible for our taxpayers' dollars instead of going out 100% building new buildings right now, especially on our budget. And what does that timeline look like? That's all I have. Those are my questions. Okay.

So the architect is coming on site this week. That's something that we have not made a decision whether we're staying in this building, going to another decision. I mean, that ultimately is going to be a council decision. We need to pull costs for that. We need to pull options. Is it cheaper to do an addition to that building? We do have a little bit of space in the back. Is it cheaper to... to do an addition just for kennel space in the back than it is to force the existing space to work for kennel space specifically, or could we reutilize that for additional veterinary space, for visitation rooms, for something like that. But we want to know what those options are, what the costs involved are before we make any decision. And that's what we'll bring back to you.

Okay, and one more thing. Thank you all for the update because you're really informing the public on what is going on with the animal shelter. And a lot of people love animals. I love them too. But at the same token, we need a facility that meets all their needs. And any way we can do an additional changes to it or modify what we have to make their life a good life, we should look into it. But also keep an eye on the budget.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Council Member Kimball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just playing a little catch up here. So what's the status of the commerce facility right now? Are we using it? Are we back in it?

The commerce facility is where most of our operations are taking place right now. Ranciere is currently vacant. Remediation was complete earlier this month, and then we'll bring the architect through this week.

So we made a decision to leave Commerce to go to Ranciere?

Yes, sir. No, to Ranciere to go to Commerce.

Ranciere to go to, okay. So when we purchased the East Lake building for 1.8, 1.77, so was there any discussion on just expanding the current facility I'm just trying to think of this thought process. If we're going to spend 1.7, 1.8 million plus operating expenses, so we just couldn't take our current facility and use those funds to make that better? Were we space prohibited? I mean, was there something? Or did we just want a new facility?

The discussion at time was to demo the stray building and then rebuild. The quarantine building is what it was used as.

So demo and rebuild.

Yes, sir. Specifically for that building.

Okay. Is that going to happen?

We are still using that facility. We do some sealing to make sure that we are keeping that facility around as long as we can. But, yes, we are absolutely still using that facility. There's the main building at Commerce, and then there's the straight facility in the back as well.

And if we're $3.4 million into this new project... can we not have used it on our original building to expand that out? I mean, I'm sure you didn't plan on spending 3.4 million, but at least you were gonna spend 1.7 plus the operational costs and other things, right?

Yes, sir, currently we're not at 3.4. It's the 1.67 that we're predicting the remodel will cost. Again, it'll depend on what we hear back from the architect. But we're not at 3.4 yet. Right now, I mean, between the 1.7 and the $5,445,000 for remediation. That's where we're at today.

I guess before we start, it's like Mayor Pro Temp said, and Councilman Brown said, This can become a money pit if not done right and not done correctly. I just want to be cautious about before we start committing large funds that we evaluate all options. Absolutely. If a total rebuild to get it done right is the way to do it, then I think we should do it that way. But, man, if we stay on this plan, we're committed at almost 3.5.

That's what we're anticipating, yes, sir.

And that's- without any unforeseen architect could come back and he, I mean, that architect could say, no, yes. I mean, we just don't know.

Correct. Correct. And so that's where we're at today. We're not looking to have anything approved. We're just letting council know we want to get costs. this and that's a council asked for an update so that's just kind of the point that we're at is so let's let's figure out what are the options to redo this facility whether it's to do an expansion to um just fix the existing square footage um so that way we know before we go down that path what it's going to cost us and about how long it'll take and when when do you think you'll come back We meet with the architect this week, so I'm hoping here in the next couple months.

Because when we start looking at the budget, we might have to find money for this, right? Because I don't think it's set aside.

Yes, sir. Mr. Cagle, correct me if I'm wrong. This is where we identified some additional CIP dollars.

That is correct.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Williams.

My question was similar to some of the others, council members. And mine was just basically, I know they mentioned about the mold. Is there still mold that you all know about in the building? Is there still mold there? It's been remediated. It had been remediated? Yes, ma'am, earlier this month. And you guys don't know when the mold started there in the building? You don't know whether it was in the building before you purchased the building or when the mold started?

We don't. It's reasonable to assume it was there after we got there. Yeah, but we don't know that for a fact.

And then to rehab the same building that you're in now, is that the decision that you all want to do or what is it you're trying to do to the building now?

We'd like to get some costs from the architect to see what the best option is, whether that's remodel, expand, if we look at costs for new, but it's just looking at costs to see what the potential could be.

Would be.

I mean, Council's absolutely right. I mean, it could be exorbitantly expensive. So before we go down that road, let's figure out what all the options are and start there.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. And thank you all for the presentation. Appreciate it. Yes, ma'am.

Council Member Bass.

Am I correct that the $1.67 million is not part of the 2027 budget?

Mr. Craig, do you want to touch on that a little bit?

No, that's not correct. It is. It's in the CIP. It was, if I recall right, it was year-end savings that we brought into this chamber, and the decision was made to set it aside for renovation of that facility.

So when we say year-end savings, it ultimately came from the 2026 budget. Savings from the 2026 budget, is that correct?

No, sir, we're in that budget now. I've been in the 25 budget.

Okay, so it came from a past budget. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. That was my question. Thank you.

Council Member Brown.

Can I ask, just so everybody knows why I'm asking, we don't have this particular presentation. So can we go back toward the beginning where it talks about the initial cost for this building, please? I think one more back. There we go. There we go. Okay, so originally one point, all right. And thank you for that because I couldn't remember how much it was originally approved for us to spend on it. So we came in right around exact what that maximum amount was then, right?

Between the 1.77, the 45,000 for remediation, and then the 4,500 to date. I mean, we're still under.

yeah we're okay so we're close on that one um and then on the the proposed or the anticipated uh improvements back in may it was stated um i believe the city put out that it would be about 1.2 million dollars to bring it up to a use for a shelter. So now we're already up to $1.7 million. Where did the extra half a million come from?

The 1.2 is what staff looked at initially when we had to submit something for our capital improvement plan. And we just had a contractor come look at the facility and talk about, okay, if we were to move walls, what would it cost? If we were to just fix drainage, what would it cost? And so we just got some general costs in order to plan for that CIP. And then throughout that CIP planning process in the spring, We also identified, okay, there's going to be architectural costs, there's going to be design costs, there's going to be engineering costs. And so knowing what we know about how much that typically costs based on total project budget, that's when we added to the 1.67. But in May, the 1.67 is what was discussed.

Again, what I don't want to see is another major city facility project go on that was supposed to be 14 months and it's taking us years and is way over budget and we're having to continuously do change orders because there's stuff that we haven't found and we can't see. How old is that building? When was it originally constructed?

I don't know that I have that on the top of my head. But I agree with you, and that's exactly why we're asking to engage with an architect and find out whatever we can to make sure that we're coming up with a good plan before we start down that path.

Because we also had the roof replaced in 2025.

Through an insurance claim, and it was through the same deductible with about 32 other buildings.

Right. So I'm saying that to say we're not going to have to pay for a new roof anytime soon, but the heating and air conditioning.

There's another insurance claim, ma'am.

Right. But the HVAC system, any issues with pipes, any issues with the ventilation, there's stuff that comes along with an aging building that we have guarantees and warranties on a new building. We don't have on this one. And that's, again, where my concern is. So I would love to also see... what it would take to expand on our current facilities and go back to Plan A before we decided to buy the veterinary clinic. And then I'd love to know how much that vet clinic is worth right now. So if we went back to Plan A, how much could we hope to get back out of that? Thank you. We can look at that.

Very poor, too.

Thank you. Okay, so the architect cost, the assessment, is there an estimate for that? I don't have that at this time.

You don't have that at this time? No, ma'am. Will that come back before council, or what does that process look like for us? So once we have an assessment, we'll bring that back to council. The cost assessment for the architect? for anything that we anticipate those costs will be. That way council has a full scope to say this is what, here's option A, it's to remodel the existing building, it's to add on to the existing building for option B, and we'll have design, engineering, and what those construction costs will be, along with the timeline.

Okay, that's great. And so I'm going to propose that we just set up a, you know, as we're working through this, and council members have made some suggestions, but just that we really put some oversight mechanisms in place for council. And when we're looking at the architect, I have some questions. Like, are we going to be thinking of, you know, are we just looking at design, rebuild, or rehab? Or are we going to be looking at will these extensive repairs trigger building modifications and excessive upgrades and things like that? And are all those factors going to be considered when we're doing that? So when we're doing those side-by-side comparisons, will we also be working on a long-term maintenance plan? Will that be part of the discussion when you come back as far as... We can absolutely include that as part of the discussion.

It's probably a different discussion, but I'm happy to include it.

What maintenance for... cleaning and things like that as far as moving forward, we'll have that conversation added to this.

Yes, ma'am. Yeah, those are all outlined by state requirements, but I'm happy to share those with council.

Okay. And would regular public progress reports and repair cost timelines and completion also be provided? Can we add that to as well?

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah. Okay. What determines, do we have any triggers or what point would staff decide or would council look at recommendation from staff to say that the renovation no longer makes financial sense? Do we have a threshold for that as it stands right now?

Not currently. Just whether we can afford it or not, basically. Correct. And it just depends what the options are. We want to make sure if we're doing this, we're making it worthwhile. I don't want to make minor repairs for a lot of money or major repairs for even more money if it doesn't make sense, if it's not going to extend the life of our time in that facility, if it doesn't allow us to house the animals that we need. And if it doesn't make sense, we've got to make sure that there's an ROI on that. But it just depends all on what that architect will say in terms of best path forward and what path gets us where. Thank you.

Council Member Nashking.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. So, Ms. Wilson, when you do get your updates, because this was just to share the information and some council members have given their input, you're going to bring us back all this before you move forward on anything and the council as a whole will make the decision if we want to start from scratch or it's feasible to go in the direction to use the facility that we already have.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Brown.

I'm sorry, just one last request. Would you please send us a copy of this presentation? Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Okay. All right, anything else? That's it. Thank you so much, Mrs. Wilson. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for that presentation. Okay, we will now go into executive session, Pursuit to the Texas Open Meeting Law, Government Code 551. 001 the mayor now calls a closed meeting of the city council on the 14th day of july 2026 and it is now 6 43 p.m under the following authority section 551.074 personal matters the city council will discuss interim city manager appointments We'll now go into executive session. Council meeting executive session closed at 712. And there was no action taken. And I need a motion to adjourn. Council Member Brown.

Move to adjourn.

Second. Council Member Kimball.

I second.

All in favor? Aye. Y'all have a good evening.