City Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready? Go for it. This concludes the workshop of the McAllen City Commission. The workshop is adjourned.

Workshops are held on the second and fourth Monday of each month at 4 p.m. in the City Commission Chamber, located on the third floor of McAllen City Hall. The public is always welcome to attend or view online. Thank you for staying informed and engaged with the City of McAllen. And now from McAllen City Hall, a meeting of the McAllen City Commission.

And good evening, everybody. Welcome to tonight's City Commission meeting. We'll begin with a Pledge of Allegiance, followed by an invocation by Commissioner Aguirre.

everybody standing and bow our heads please. Almighty God, we thank you for the privilege of gathering today. Grant us a clear vision to look beyond the immediate task of this moment. Help us to see vast potential for positive growth within our community. Inspire us to look beyond our current achievements toward even greater possibilities. fill our hearts with cooperation, enthusiasm, and an unfulfilled commitment to excellence. May our shared dedication bring forward the best ideas for the common good. List his body with wisdom, steady encouragement, and enduring optimism. Keep your eyes focused on opportunity, harmony, and a bright future for all. In your name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Okay, we have a proclamation, but before that, I just want to wish Commissioner Aguirre, who will be having a birthday in a few days, we won't see him, so happy birthday, Commissioner. Happy birthday.

Happy birthday.

49 again. 49 again. And also before the proclamation, as I was sitting down, I found this, a beautiful, beautiful little gift from our VSO Valley Symphony Orchestra. It's a thank you note. So a lot of the times the city doesn't get any thank yous, but VSO, thank you so much for the thank you. It's beautiful. Thank you so much. And we have a proclamation, we have Gustavo Escandonde, Commissioner Aguirre, he's doing everything today.

Great day. You know, we're going through graduations right now, and if you have the opportunity to hear some of the graduation valedictorians and salutatorium speeches and get to possibly see them, it's fantastic. We're growing some great individuals in our area. We should be very, very proud. Today's proclamation, you know, is twofold. You know, having the academic and also, you know, the athletic ability, you know, it's challenging. And it takes that commitment. And that's what we're all about. In this community, that's what we want. We want to be able to have that opportunity, to give the opportunity for those that wish to make a difference in their lives. And today's proclamation is... to a very good young man. Whereas the city of McAllen takes great pride in encouraging young citizens whose discipline, perseverance, and character bring honor to their families, their schools, and the entire community. And whereas Gustavo Escandon, a senior at McAllen Memorial High School, has distinguished himself as an excellent student-athlete within the McAllen Memorial Mustang Powerlifting Program. And whereas, in the spring of 2026, Gustavo achieved historic success in the Texas High School Powerlifting Association State Championship in Abilene, Texas. becoming the school's first ever male powerlifting state champion. And whereas competing in the 198-pound Gustavo achieved a remarkable championship total of lifting a hundred and a thousand seven hundred and thirty five pounds of which 675 were in squats 425 pounds in bench press And 635 pounds in deadlift and earned outstanding deadlift lifter of the state of Texas. And whereas over the last three years, Gustavo has school records across the 242 pound, 220 pound, and the 198 pound divisions. while additionally representing the Mustangs in football and in track and field. And whereas Gustavo's historic achievements stem from his uncommon commitment, humility, and leadership, serving as a powerful role model who proves the daily efforts, of courage, teamwork, and extraordinary results. And now I, Tony Aguirre, here City Commissioner of the City of McAllen, by vested in me and the City Commission, the Mayor and the City Commission, do hereby proclaim Gustavo Escandón Day. Excellent.

no okay thank you let's come take a picture is it well congratulations i think i can probably lift a thousand pounds but 20 pounds at a time so let's see okay um public hearings omar Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioners. The following items went to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May the 19th. Item number one is rezoning from R1 to R1. This is at 301 Houston Avenue. This is just west of 2nd Street. Item number two is rezoning from C1, C3 to C1. This is for Rio Branc. This is at the corner of South Jackson and McCalls at 720 and 800 East Jackson Avenue. Item number three is rezoning from R1 to R1. This is located at 309 Quince Avenue. This is just on north of 2nd Street. I'm sorry, north of 2nd Street. Item number four is the city initiated rezoning of 443 parcels.

Is anybody here to speak against any of these items? Anyone to speak against any of these items? And if not? Motion to approve.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. Next item, I need a motion to amend the zoning ordinance of the city of McAllen. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. Consent agenda items A through L. Do we need to pull anything out?

May I just point out that item B is the alley rehab section B project we discussed in the workshop.

Do we need to pull anything out? If not, do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Against? But don't we need to... Remove it? What do we need to remove?

I just wanted to make sure the commission was aware that the Section B alley rehabilitation project that we discussed in the workshop were part of the consent agenda to be approved. Okay. So that Section B work will be awarded. We don't need to formally approve it.

Okay. Great.

Well, we did.

We did already.

Okay, item number 3.

Yeah, mayor item 3 is an award of contract for auditing services for the fiscal year ending 26 through 30. Sonia.

Good afternoon on April 15th, the purchasing department issued a request for proposal for auditing services for fiscal year 2026 to 2030. On May 8, the city received proposals from 6 firms. All firms are qualified and capable of auditing the city's financial statements. Excuse me. Primary difference among the proposals was audit fees. Based on staff's recommendation, the Audit Investment Committee unanimously voted on June 3rd to recommend awarding the auditing services contract to Burton, McCumber, and Longoria for approval.

Who do we have right now?

Weaver.

Weaver, okay, but we usually want to change it after so many.

We do. We extended Weaver's contract by one extra year due to some delays in the implementation of the ERP project. This year, Weaver did assign a new partner to the account, so we did have fresh eyes within Weaver. But we do, every couple of years, try to rotate those services, so there's always fresh eyes looking for our financials.

In the packet, there weren't prices indicated.

It's not based. You can't base these on price.

Price was one of the factors in the scoring criteria. Overall, Burton McCumber scored highest amongst all of the categories that were reviewed by staff in selecting the firm. And their fees were the most competitive.

Yes.

Even though we cannot be based on low.

It was not.

Okay.

The Audit Investment Committee passed it this past week. JJ Zamora, Ernie Williams, and myself sit on it. And we're real pleased that a local firm was able to.

Commissioner Zamora had some good questions at the meeting. One of the things he was specifically concerned about was whether the firm had municipal experience, government experience, and so we did cover that. I don't remember specifically all of the entities that they had done work for, but I believe it includes Hidalgo County and several other larger entities in the area. As well as some of the school districts, too. Yes, sir. So we felt comfortable moving forward with it.

Is it a five-year term? Yes, sir.

Four, 26 to 30. Any other questions?

Motion to approve contract. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries.

Item B. Eduardo, item number B, Mayor, is award a contract for the Lindbergh Avenue and 6th Street Drainage Improvement Project.

Mayor and Commission, the scope of work focuses on stormwater management. The project includes approximately 500 linear feet of 15 inch slotted drain, 1,415 linear feet of 15 inch storm pipe, associated pavement reconstruction. The project also includes the removal and replacement of 2,135 feet of 18 inch curb and gutter. DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK CONCRETE FLATWORK THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL FACILITATE THE CAPTURE AND CONVEYANCE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF THE ENGINEER RECORD MELDEN AND HUNT AND STAFF RECOMMEND AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION AND IS THAT DESIGNED ON MCCALLEN TEXAS IN THE AMOUNT OF THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX DOLLARS AND THIRTY FOUR CENTS WITH A CONTRACT TIME OF NINETY DAYS WE'VE INCLUDED THE BID PRICING IN THE BACK AND A LITTLE MAP OF THE AREA THAT IS TO BE IMPROVED AND WE OPEN IT UP FOR

Any questions in the scoring are y'all taking into account past experience with the vendors?

So for the construction contract, this was a strictly a low bid. We did not do a competitive seal proposal for this. This one is a construction contract commissioner.

Well, but in construction contracts. If they have not performed in the past, well, in our community, we do take that in consideration, but the engineer has to also review that they are able to perform their duties. Okay, yes.

So what we did on this instance, and we do on most of our contracts when we have a A VENDOR THAT WE HAVEN'T USED BEFORE WE'LL CALL, WE'LL GET REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THESE. WE TALKED TO THE SUB IN THIS INSTANCE THAT WILL ALSO BE PERFORMING SOME OF THE WORK. WE INTERVIEWED THEM AND SO OUR ENGINEERS WENT THROUGH THAT DILIGENCE, FELT COMFORTABLE IN MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION AND THEN WE ALSO CHECKED WITH MELDIN AND HUNT AND GOT A SIMILAR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.

Okay, so just the lowest responsible bidder.

This is the lowest responsible bidder. We just do some due diligence, like Commissioner Aguirre mentioned, to make sure that they perform work in the area and they're competent in the work.

Anybody? Any other questions? Motion to approve. All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. Item C.

So this is a consideration and authorization negotiate scope and fee with the top-ranked firm construction engineering inspection services for the FM 22 Underground trail passing the proposed construction of the underpass at FM 2220 is approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Houston Avenue provide connectivity Between the McAllen Convention Center and the Westside Park the scope of work includes construction engineering and inspection material testing and construction management services Staff recommends authorization to negotiate the scope of businesses and fee schedule with the top-ranked firm B2Z Engineering of Mission, Texas. If negotiations are unsuccessful, staff will cease negotiations and, with the city manager's approval, initiate negotiations with the next highest-ranked firms. We've included the scoring of those firms, and we open it up for any questions.

Any questions? I have a question. On the evaluation criteria, you have one, two, three, four, five. Are they all equally weighted the same so that the maximum was 100 points or 80 points? Or are they weighted differently in terms of maximum number of points?

Per score, they're all weighted the same. And so we give them the scoring criteria. It's not included here, but it's usually about 30 points, 32 points. And each one of us will score that. Um, so they're based on the same right on the relevant experience.

What's the maximum point? So they could have got.

Relative experience is 30. Key personnel is 25. The project management.

Oh, then you add them from, okay, got it. Right. Okay. Never mind. Understood.

Okay. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. Item 4.

Mayor, item 4A is an ordinance providing for the abandonment of a 10-foot utility easement at 7901 North 10th Street.

I'd like to get rid of Eastman's. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. Against?

Motion carries. Number five. All right, item number five is a couple of variances. So item number five is located at 11401 North 10th, just south of State Highway 107. The proposed subdivision Alhambra on 10th, which is 67 residential lots. They are requesting two variances, one for internal road right-of-way width and proposing 50 feet in lieu of the 60, with 10 foot of sidewalk and utility expense. And exceed, variance number two is exceed the maximum block length, which we have bicentennial on the west side, so we won't let them punch out into that one. And we already have a development to the south side, so there's nowhere for them to connect to. The development team and PNZ recommend approval of the variances. Okay, any questions, comments? I take it.

I think I saw that they have 40 feet of- Paving back to back.

Paving, so that- Yes, sir. And the planning department- Sorry. The planning department is in agreement or approval with the request? Yes, sir.

Motion to approve. All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. Item B.

Item B. This property is located at 2201 South Benson Road, just south of Uvalde. This is a three-lot residential development. They are requesting three variances. One, not to provide... To dedicate the required right-of-way on South Benson, they are proposing 10 feet of right-of-way under the 20, not meeting the required cul-de-sac requirements. Variance number three is not to provide sidewalks on the south side of the east and west interior streets. The development team and planning zoning commission recommend approval of request one and three, but disapproval of variance number two. And we need the required 96 feet of face to face for paving from back to, sorry, from face to face for the fire access. So we're recommending approval of one and three and disapproval of two. Questions, comments? This is on Benson. Yes, that's just a 3 lot subdivision. So they can modify that last lot to where they can comply with a cold sec.

Department move to approve as recommended.

Do I hear a 2nd, all in favor against motion carries. I don't see. Item C, this property is located in our ETJ at 14601 North Trosper Road, just south of 9 1⁄2 Mile. They are requesting not to provide the east-west quarter mile collector street that is needed. We have received a quarter of a mile of right-of-way to the east. The development team is willing to relocate the 60 feet of right-of-way from the middle of their property and move it north, to their property line and only require 30 feet of right of way. This would allow us to still have the connectivity. If we don't get the 30 feet of right of way, the city will need to purchase the property at a later date. Planning and zoning approved the variance, but the development team would like to get the quarter mile collector.

So you all are okay if they give up the property in the north?

Correct. So instead of cutting them in the middle and giving us 60, we'll do 30 but do it on the north side.

You'll still be able to connect later on?

Correct. It'll be a jog to it, but it'll still work. And the 30 feet is sufficient? Correct. We'll get the additional 30 feet from the property to the north when they develop.

When these variances are given and you're moving it like that to where the adjacent property owner is then going to be under an obligation to provide that as well, is there any notice given to the adjacent property owners?

No, sir.

Why not? That's a good point.

I've often wondered that. Okay. It's just when it's development driven and it's just not something we don't do.

So if we do this, then the other person, whenever it gets developed, it's going to have to go with that too.

So we're affecting the other person without getting noticed.

Well, they have noticed that the variance was requested, so let's make sure that's clear.

But they don't know that the conversation is that they're going to move the right-of-way from the middle to the adjacent property line.

I don't like variances when they affect somebody else or it's going to cost our residents in the future.

That's a good point.

See, my concern is just the alignment. I know you can do a dogleg so that when you hit Trosper, you know, you have a controlled, nice four-way intersection, right? But the way it is right now, it wouldn't be that, right? No.

But then we'd be taking 60 feet out of this particular development.

Right. I'm completely in favor of moving it. It makes sense to put it on the north property line where it won't affect third development land, but... I do think it is an issue when you're affecting an adjacent property owner. I don't know the method by which we could have that done. I don't know that the code necessarily provides for it, but it does seem like that is a notification and a possible opportunity for that adjacent property owner to comment before we send it in motion.

He might want it because he's going to get a street. No, it should benefit. It should benefit, but just in case, he should know.

Yeah, so Austin, you can speak to the the notice requirements with the notice requirements under the under the local government code require us to provide notice that variance has been applied for and the citizen or property owner has the right to. They do.

They do have a right, but they don't know what the conversation is going to be.

That's right.

Or what the net effect of the decision will have on there. There's some statutory requirements of what that notice has to say, but, Commissioner, the point's well taken, and I can look into if there's other language we want to consider including in that notice.

Yeah, like to explain what the possible outcomes or consequences or actions that the city could take.

It is difficult because it ties the city's hands to some degree on negotiating a compromise in any of the variances that are being requested. Still, we likely know who the adjacent property owner is, correct? So a communication, a call could be made even if we don't tie our hands by Building something additional an additional requirement into the code as an informal process if we're doing something in the in the process by which we're Agreeing to a change and what was applied for it does seem that informally we can we could contact Another property owner that is being affected.

I think we should it makes common sense.

Okay

We can't benefit somebody at the detriment of somebody else. That's really what we'd be doing without them knowing what we're doing.

Certainly no harm in offering some additional transparency. We'll see if we can work on a process to accomplish that.

Thank you.

Okay, so what are we doing? Is that some table lit?

No. What do you want to do? Well, we have to.

We're going to look into it.

Well, I mean, that way hopefully it can go communicate with the other owner. They may be willing to say, you know what, I'd love to have a street right here.

Make a motion a table set item.

A second in favor against the motion carries item D.

This property is also located in RTJ. It is at 11505 North Bryan, just north of State Highway 107. This is for two lot subdivision, one residential and one commercial. They are requesting three variances. One, not to provide the required alley for commercial property. And two, not to provide the required north-south collector street. And three, to exceed the maximum block length. The development team approved variants one and three and disapproved variance number two at the planning zoning commission The planning zoning commission approved all three variances We are already gotten a quarter of a mile of the right-of-way to the south of this development the city would uh Have to of course purchase the right additional right-of-way at a later date to keep the connectivity That's exactly you're saying if

That they are. We already have a quarter of a mile collect South and they're asking for a variance not to do it.

OK, so there was so many asked to be asked in this one.

So there was three variances. Development team is okay with one and three and disapproval of the number two.

Okay, and one was what?

Not to provide the required alley so they can do a service drive in lieu of an alley. The number three is the maximum block length. So, of course, they're already sandwiched in between the other developed areas, so we're fine with the block length. And two is the? The north-south collector.

And that's your recommendation? Correct. One, three, minus two.

Yes.

Move to approve as recommended.

Explain a little bit more about the north-south collector.

So further south on that particular one, we've already gotten a quarter of a mile collector on this particular one. So just south of 107 at this particular neighborhood, we had already gotten the right-of-way. So this would just continue at North?

So they're not wanting to give up the right-of-way that we're requesting? Correct. Yes, sir. See, and that's the issue that I have, because on our thoroughfare plan, which is all those nice squared out black lines on Northwest McGowan, we're going to start binding ourselves if we don't give the right-of-way. And I keep having these images from the 80s and early 90s of 29th Street between, what was it, Daffodil and Vine. You know, where the big, uh, transmission poles are and part of the street was curved. Tony, where are you? Yeah, you know this, Tony. Um, and then part of the street was not right. And that's where obviously there was a disconnect in terms of right away. Um, I, I think. We're setting ourselves for further problems. You know, once this board has come and gone and another board sits. To look at, but I think we have to be forward thinking long term. This area looks like it's starting to get populated and subdivided and let's not put ourselves in the box. All right, so I'll make a motion to approve items 1 and 3 and disapprove 2.

That's what that's the motion on the table. Oh, that's the second. Okay. I wasn't listening. My apologies commissioner. Okay.

1st of the 2nd, all in favor against. Motion carries.

Item E. Item 3, this property is located at 2801 South 10th. This is on South 10th and Sunset. This is for Quinta Mazaclan. They are requesting two variances. One, not to dedicate the required right of way for South 10th, and two, to allow a lot to develop without the frontage onto public street. We are getting additional 10 feet of right-of-way for South Tent, so a total of 110. South Tent is 150. However, we already have the five lanes in this particular area, and we don't see this expanding anytime soon. So we are recommending approval on both of those.

What do our friends at TxDOT have to say about this?

I don't know about that. That's going to be his section.

I mean, it's their highway, right?

Yeah.

I don't need to check in with Texas. They're going to say that they want it. This is a, this is a, that's their standard response when we're talking about right away. And so when they look at the thoroughfare plan, well for us as the planners or the engineering department, We know that we already have a build out of by the mall, the country club where you go down this property. And so when we were looking at designing the center for urban ecology. We took that into account, we took into account the size of 10 street already, and we don't see that expanding any further.

Move to approve 2nd favor against motion carries managers report.

Mayor, item 6A is consideration and approval of a name to be selected for a new McAllen Public Library Foundation. Kate? Perfect name, McAllen Public Library Foundation.

Good evening. Sorry, I didn't know if you wanted me to come forward. So we would like to name this new foundation, McAllen Public Library Foundation. What we're hoping is to get sponsorships to be able to give scholarships, $1,000 scholarships or so, for students who might be lacking the funding to go to higher education.

Can't get any clearer than that one, McAllen Public.

Love the name. It has McAllen. Do you have a recommendation?

That is my recommendation. Yes, sir. Okay, do I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Against?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And thank you very much, Kate. Kate has done a tremendous job at our McAllen Library. The library has been really good this year.

incredible to use and even did a great job thursday at the citizens league with a presentation mayor item 6b is a review of the quarterly investment report for the quarter ended march 31 2026.

The quarterly investment report for quarter ending March 31st, 2026 is in compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act and the city's investment policy. The ending book value for the quarter was $485,113,723. The weighted average yield to maturity was 3.86%. The quarterly investment report was reviewed by the Audit Investment Committee on June 3rd, and they recommend approval.

Questions?

No, Mayor, I'll just comment. Sonia and her team downstairs in finance have done a really good job. being much more active in paying attention to cash flow needs and making sure that we are taking advantage of interest rates that exist today for fear that they may change in the near future. So Sonia and her team have got us well ahead of where we thought we would be right now with investment income. They're doing a great job. Just wanted to compliment them on that. This report was presented to the Audit Investment Committee at the meeting a week or so ago for review and approval. It's our recommendation that the Commission accept this report. So I move to accept.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Future advisory board appointments. Advisory board appointments.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Commission. This item is for advisory board appointments, and I have received nominations from two of the city commissioners. Commissioner Zamora is reappointing James Collins to the Friends of Quinta, and Christopher Davis to the Historic Preservation Council. He's also nominating Rick Guerra to Friends of Quinta as a reappointment. That appointment requires the approval of the entire commission.

and commissioner rios is appointing barry patel to the friends of quinta and that's it all the ones eligible for reappointment i'll reappoint and then on on the community development council i'm appointing jose trevino jose trevino you said right got it and if there's no other nominations anybody else

Just a question further on the Convention Center by your board. I don't have nobody.

Yes, you do. I had I actually had sent you an email. Just wanted to confirm that that's where we're good with that nomination. On the library board. Yes, yes, it was a library board.

Do you need a motion to approve Rick Guerra from the whole commission?

That's the full committee. It requires the entire commission.

Motion to approve Rick Guerra.

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. And I guess I need a motion to approve everybody else.

So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. Future agenda items.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. City Manager, on this item, I'd like to get maybe just a quick update, whether it be the Friday highlights or some workshop with regards to movement or progress on the traffic department building. It's a piece of property the city had acquired seven years ago, and just like to see, get an update in terms of design progress with it. Yes, sir.

Also, is that the one next to Rubens?

Yes.

also we were supposed to get some updates from aep on that area they're getting from they're using from the city quarterly oh that's right i want to know where we're at with that yes sir

Excellent. Council, what do we have in executive session item?

Mayor, with regards to item 7A, no action is necessary. With regards to item 7C, no action is necessary. But with regards to item 7B, I recommend that the board entertain a motion to instruct the city manager and city attorney to proceed as described in executive session. So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all so much.

Regular City Commission meetings are held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. Meetings are broadcast on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays on the McKellen Cable Network.